From: datajerk on 13 Nov 2009 11:53
On Nov 13, 9:09 am, JAM <ja_1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:22 am, "John H Meyers" <jhmey...(a)nomail.invalid> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0600, JAM...
> > Hmm.. must be Jacek!
> Hi John. Yes, it's me again.
> > How's things in automobile engineering?
> Let's just leave it at "difficult" :-)
> > My own auto wasn't engineered to last too long,
> > that's all I know -- perhaps it was designed using Macs?
> No. All major manufacturer use either Catia or NX for design. Both
> those CAD systems run on Windows.
NX for OS/X:
Granted CAE is not there--not yet. CATIA, perhaps someday.
Times are changing.
From: JAM on 13 Nov 2009 12:26
On Nov 13, 10:56 am, rs1n <handuongs...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, I would
> never consider running a web server using Windows.
Agreed, but we are talking personal computer OS here. Not server. Who
needs HP calculator driver for server ?
I'm not an expert on servers, but I'm under the impression, that there
is a myriad of web servers online running Windows. What is the reason
for this ? Are all those IT experts out there idiots ? They can have
Linux server for free. What can be cheaper than this ?
BTW, can you run ASP .NET on non Windows server ?
> I would prefer to
> do any multimedia editing on a Mac (e.g. Photoshop is a native Mac
Why is that ? What exactly Mac version of Photoshop has, that Windows
version lacks ? PC Magazine did a test couple of years ago and found
out that Photoshop on Windows runs actually faster than the one on the
Mac with similar hardware underpinnings.
> For publishing papers, I would stick to LaTeX while
> running Linux (even though there are packages for LaTeX under
I don't know LaTeX so I would ask the same question. Is there anything
in Windows version missing when compared to Linux ?
And of course, fact that you personally prefer LaTeX does not mean
much. There are probably people who would use GIMP over Photoshop.
So the second question is, what is the world standard for desktop
publishing out there ? I was under the impression that it is one of
the Adobe products originally made for Mac.
Regarding Linux it is probably the worst choice for anybody at home.
It has the least software support, poor hardware support and needs
computer engineer to set it up and maintain. Especially when it comes
to installing new software or trrying to make hardware work. Please,
leave it to the 5% of geeks who insist in being different just for the
sake of it.
> The only reason I run Windows is because people send me
> documents that I would need software which runs on Windows to open.
That is the point. World out there is 95% Windows. Whats the point of
being incompatible ?
> To claim that Windows is the be-all-end-all solution for computing is
> like saying the only type of automobile we ever need is the <insert
> most popular car model here> since it is the most widely used car with
> the most after-market accessories.
There is a lot of truth to what you just said. From all the sedans in
the world they all are basically same and the only reason people
choose one over another is because they want to look different than
their neighbour and possibly show off with their money. Unlike with
cars however, using similar logic with computers is idiotic. Insisting
on being different than your neighbour makes one significantly less
compatible with the rest of the world and that is negative. I use to
have Commodore Amiga. It was the most advanced personal computer in
the world at the time. So what. I barely could buy good software and
rich hardware extensions for it and all had price premium that was
annoying. I have dumped this machine for $100 to some young guy who
wanted to be different from PC crowd and bought myself 386 Windows 3.1
machine. And never looke back since then. Not only Windows quickly
evolved to much more powerfull system that Amiga ever was, but also
since then I had access to cheap plentifull and excellent quality of
hardware and software. Many of those at bargain prices. Some people
complain that Windows 7 does not run 16 bit Windows 3.1 applications.
Don't get me wrong. The fact that Linux, Open Source movement and Mac
exists keep Microsoft in check pricewise and quality wise. So i must
be thankfull to you guys. Microsoft without competition would charge
us arm and leg for their products.
From: JAM on 13 Nov 2009 12:53
On Nov 13, 11:53 am, "dataj...(a)gmail.com" <dataj...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:09 am, JAM <ja_1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 9:22 am, "John H Meyers" <jhmey...(a)nomail.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:10 -0600, JAM...
> > > Hmm.. must be Jacek!
> > Hi John. Yes, it's me again.
> > > How's things in automobile engineering?
> > Let's just leave it at "difficult" :-)
> > > My own auto wasn't engineered to last too long,
> > > that's all I know -- perhaps it was designed using Macs?
> > No. All major manufacturer use either Catia or NX for design. Both
> > those CAD systems run on Windows.
> NX for OS/X:
> Granted CAE is not there--not yet. CATIA, perhaps someday.
> Times are changing.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I have seen both packages. NX for Unix has significanlty reduced
functionality. But you have it wrong just looking on the website.
Originally NX was designed for Unix. It was known at the time as
McDonnel Douglas Unigraphics. It simply over the years changed
ovnership, changed it's name and migrated to Windows. Unix support is
only there for historical reasons for those who cannot yet afford to
replace all their workstations to Windows. Major automotive and
airplane manufacturers already replaced their CAD systems to Windows
years ago. They still have some CAE on Unix and use Unix NX licenses
just to open CAD data on the Unix side. Nodbody does design on Unix
side anymore in those manufacturers. It is CAE that is still better
supported on Unix and it is right now migrating to Windows because of
the pressure from corporations. CATIA also used to be Unix. I belive,
they have completely dumped Unix.
From: manjo on 15 Nov 2009 08:21
JAM i'm all the way with you, also i belive i do understand
the other "open source" side and some of their benefits as well (bin there,
So here's my contribution to 64bit opensource office drivers subject :-)
There is NO proper substitute for MS office <period>
For countless reasons -it's nice if you can see/admit this, if not... the
better for you
(easier to accept the substitutes).
Low-end users may not realize all the advanced stuff available in M$ Office
and by not knowing and not using advanced functionality those may claim
was as good as MS Office (once again ... ITS not and i don't see it in the
A LOT of speicalized software a lot of development tools and so on are
available on Windows at the same time not available on other platforms or
frequently updated and maintained as with M$ -also true.
Although the point of "open source" was exactly the opposite (availability,
updatability, contribution etc...)
For those "in to" open source and free software: let me remind you that
there are TONS
of "open soruce" projects as well as free tools and software based on
windows platform as well.
"Open source" is falsely but often asociated with Linux or other open source
Open soruce project doesn't require open source hardware and software
However i don't see a point in arguing about this further because its a
simple matter of choice.
For as long as there will be a choice (in any matter) there will be people
that their choice is the right one, also there will be more radical people
which will say it's the only choice or "logical consequence" of everything
that was before and all other choices are wrong or dum.
Just remember... at that point things tend not to be a freedom of choice it
becomes a religion, or dogma if you will, and as such limits again the
freedoms which led to this argument in the first place...
So, my opinion for today is:
Offices are not the same, M$ has a lot of features and arguments working
which substitutes don't and it will stay so
in the forseeable future. (it's not by coincidence that MS Office is
standard in most offices/companies)
If you choose not to belive me you will NOT be damned, and you should not
allow yourself to be forced or preached in to
something you don't like or don't understand, but you should not try to
"convert" other people either.
As to 64bit platforms (and drivers)...
time is not right to switch your desktop/workstation/laptop from 32bit to
64bit for many resons drivers being among most important.
Remember we got fully operational 32bit proccessor (386) but it took some
time to get to fully functional 32bit OS-es with decent driver support.
True, there is some "waist" of having 64bit capable hardware running in
32bit mode, however if the compatibility is to be maintained 32bit is the
way to go.
64bit is safe choice for most server applications if it's a database server,
webserver, fileserver ... whatever, but you should not expect signifficant
benefits over 32bit except for greater ammount of memory that your
proccessor/OS will be able to handle.
So if you're planing to have 1 host OS and about 4GiB of memory you still
don't have a solid reason to go 64bitwise.
excuse me for the length of the post
-that's just something i had in mind for this subject
From: Joel Koltner on 15 Nov 2009 20:08
"manjo" <xxxx(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> Low-end users may not realize all the advanced stuff available in M$ Office
> and by not knowing and not using advanced functionality those may claim
> was as good as MS Office (once again ... ITS not and i don't see it in the
> near future).
I agree with you that most users don't have a clue just how powerful MSO
really is "under the hold." What I usually claim that OpenOffice has more
than enough features for what the vast majority of Microsoft Office users
*actually use* -- the number of people who ever record a macro in Word is
probably less than 5 in 100, and those who write their own VB scripts or
control Word (etc.) via the standard COM interface is likely under 1 in 100.
(In general I think that COM is one of the most undervalued aspect of
Windows -- Linux doesn't seem to have anything that's nearly as ubiquitous
when it comes to automation, and instead you see a lot of slightly-scary shell
scripts that glue everything together. It works, but it ain't pretty.)
> However i don't see a point in arguing about this further because its a
> simple matter of choice.
Agreed, and now that it's pretty easy and cheap to run virtual machines,
there's no reason people can't just run whatever mix of OSes they like.
> As to 64bit platforms (and drivers)...
> time is not right to switch your desktop/workstation/laptop from 32bit to
> 64bit for many resons drivers being among most important.
I've been surprised just how many OEMs (Acer, HP, etc.) are shipping Windows 7
as a 64-bit installation -- even on relatively low-end machines like CULV
models (one step up from a netbook, e.g., Acer AS1410s).