Platform bashing

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Now...what's the photographic objective of this thread?

 

<p><i>Linux is only worth the time to learn to config properly if you are earning a living off of it.</i>

 

<p>Now how does this differ from any other OS? If I'd like to use Word and Paint Shop Pro on Windows, why should I learn to "configure it properly"?

 

<p>I know people who like Windows, Linux, OS X or Solaris, you name it. The vast majority of them are quite reasonable people who will admit they use the platform they like best and take the fact that other people might want to use different systems for granted; it's no problem to anyone. Yet when I look at these threads I see a picture painted of a huge anti-X (where X is the OS of your choice) conspiracy going on. There isn't, I assure you, there are just a few (very few) fanatics on the net making a lot of noise.

 

<p><i>The majority of the tech savy here have concluded that differences between the new platforms and operating systems in terms of digital imaging are negligible</i>

 

<p>This is what I've been saying all along and I still agree. And it's no one else's friggin businesses what I run on my machine (and consequently I don't care about what you're running).

[carl smith]

Oskar, if you've ever done an installation of Linux you'll know what that means. It's a lot more painful than Windows and Mac OS installations. Software is another thing, there's almost always a learning and configuring phase but linux takes more work to get up and running on most machines it is installed on compared to Windows and Mac OS.

[ellis_vener_photography]

The New York Times ran a very laudatory article about Bill & Melinda Gates today (7/

12/03). Here

is the link to the entire story: <a href = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/

national/

13GATE.html?hp> Gates Aims Billions at Illnesses of World's Neediest

</a> and here are the lead paragraphs:<P>

<I><B>Gates Aims Billions at Illnesses of World's Neediest</B> By STEPHANIE

STROM<P>

 

 

 

Philanthropists do not typically lavish their money on swine. Or mosquitoes, for that

matter.<P>

But Bill Gates is no ordinary philanthropist. If immunizing pigs can end the spread of

tapeworms, which cause virulent neurological disorders, he will pay to vaccinate

them. If mosquitoes can be neutralized as malaria carriers by altering their genetic

code, his money � and lots of it � will support the research.

<P> "The basic science that can be applied to these problems has been advanced

greatly," Mr. Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, said in a recent interview at the

company's headquarters in Redmond, Wash. "So all you have to do is take a modest

amount of the rich world's resources to have a huge impact on the poor world."<P>

 

"Modest" is a relative term, particularly when the person using it is the world's richest

man and is speaking of his plans to solve intractable health problems on a global

scale.<P>

 

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has distributed $6.2 billion since its

founding less than four years ago, has pledged more than half of that total, or $3.2

billion, to improving health in the developing world. The foundation's influence now

rivals that of the World Health Organization and Unicef.<P>

 

Here is one point of comparison: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and

Malaria, a partnership of 14 countries with private charities, foundations and

industry, plans to spend roughly $1.5 billion to fight those diseases over the next two

to three years, some $50 million or $60 million of which comes from the Gates

Foundation. The Gates Foundation on its own has already spent more than $610

million on those diseases, and will spend at least another $478 million by the end of

2005.<P>

 

The foundation's influence can already be seen in rising vaccination rates in some of

the world's poorest countries, in clinical trials of drugs that are promising but have

limited commercial potential and in new devices that make the delivery of health care

easier and cheaper.<P>

 

Dr. Tore Godal, executive secretary of Global Alliance for Vaccines and

Immunization, a major Gates beneficiary, said it had delivered more than 180 million

doses of vaccines since 2000, thus saving more than 100,000 lives. Mr. Gates figures

that his philanthropy will have touched more than a million lives by the end of the

decade, and his goal is to reach tens of millions more.<P>

 

"Bill Gates is going to be remembered more for what he did for international public

health than what he did for the world of computers," predicted Richard T. Mahoney, a

professor at Arizona State University who has wide experience dealing with health

issues in poor countries.<P>

 

Those who think of Mr. Gates as a ruthless billionaire monopolist, the man who was

so testy and sarcastic with government prosecutors during the Microsoft antitrust

trial, may find it hard to reconcile that image with one of a humorously self-

deprecating philanthropist.</I>(© 2003 New York Times

[richard_liles]

Isn't that what the WHO is for? Sounds like Gates is just trying to buy a

humanitarian image to offset being a monopolist.

 

About the platform issue, this rant from another flame war says it all.

 

"I couldn't give a crap about stupid tests. I've been using Macs and Pee Cees

for years. Faster or slower Macs are better. They just work better in the real

world. I've hearing this crap about Dual 1.42 ghz G4s computers being slow

and overpriced. Macs just work better. I'm a graphic designer. I wouldn't dare

put a Windows PC through what I put my slow old Dual 533 G4 through at

every deadline. A Windows PC would crumble under the pressure. One stupid

Windows hardware or software conflict and I could be down for days. One

missed deadline and the cost is tens to hundreds to thousands. Macs don't

do that. They just work and work right. I would love to own a Dual 1.42 ghz

G4, but these idiot PC morons keep telling me a G4 is slow when in reality you

can do a whole lot more work more efficiently on a G4 than a Pentium. Well,

now Apple has machines that blow away the fastest Pentiums in any test you

want and all you cry baby Windows zealots cry fowl. Face it G5s easily beat

Dual Xeons and you just can't stand it. Go play with your PC and work on it

some more. Fix some of those conflicts, illegal instructions, fatal exceptions

and blue screens. That's about all they are good for. The OS is unstable, can't

multitask worth a hoot, crashes all the time and is pounded by security

problems daily. Face it. The tests were done a lot more fairly than those

demonstrations that Microsoft got caught cheating on in court when trying to

prove on video that IE was a necessary part of Windows. If they'll openly

misrepresent and fake videos as evidence in a court of law, you can be sure

that every piece of gospel coming from the Wintel camp is nothing but the

absolute truth. Yet you morons cry fowl every time someone beats your little

Wintel machines in a speed test. I'm not down on Intel or even AMD. They

make a lot of the parts that are in a G5 that help the G5 outperform the 32 bit

Intel machines and they even make money off these parts. I just don't like

being told that my preferred and superior tool of my trade is a load of crap.

They sell tools at Kmart that are the same size and specs as SnapOn, but you

won't see a professional mechanic buying the tools of his trade from Kmart.

The tools would strip out the first load you put on them. That's what PCs do.

Every Windows PC I've ever worked with was a cheap piece of garbage with

the exception of one 200 mhz Pentium Pro IBM. Go smoke some more crack

and keep deluding yourself about how great those untouchable 32 bit Xeons

are and keep tinkering with your PC and I'll keep getting work done with my

Mac."

[carl smith]

Ahh but see Richard, you're the reason we have these flame wars, because you're wrong.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Scott & <i>Richard Re" Every Windows PC I've ever worked with was a cheap piece of garbage with the exception of one 200 mhz Pentium Pro IBM </i><BR><BR>Here the old Ibm server Apache and other IBM 365's have been serviceable boxes; with robust cosmic ray ECC memory for those low errors.:).....<BR><BR>Here I always use PC's for graphics arts; and driving printers. This is because we also print customers files; that SOME are from PC only based software; thus the machines must be able open oddball file types; and programs; that only work on PC's................If I had MAC's only; we would have to turn down work. As a printer; I dont have the luxury of pissing off customers; because "we only have a MAC" ; and cannot print the many oddball files; engineering drawings; that are PC specific................The average person doesnt have this problem; thus they can choose either a PC or a MAC; without any problems............<BR><BR>The bashing of PC's as being unreliable by MAC users is abit funny; since our MAC customers tend to be the most creative; but often are the most ignorant of file types; resolution etc.............One MAC customer of ours repeatedly brings us *TIF and *PDF files; both goofy...The Tiff files have good resolution; but their corporate red is always barbie pink...Their *.pdf files have the proper "corporate red" look and profiles; but have little resolution; and are compressed way too much.....This has been going on for 4 years now; with no learning by them.....Now we just scan their printed materials; which doesnt work as well; and requires alot of retouching.........................Another MAC customer knows what they are doing; and brings in excellent files to print; and proper profiles............PC customers here tend to be all over the map; way goofier; or alot more knowledgeable; but they out number MAC users by 1:100...........<BR><BR>Macs and PC's are way different; PC's can be built from scratch; but today it is done not that much anymore; it doesnt pay to do so; unless one is doing oddball stuff...Like DOS machines with ISA slots @1 + Ghz like we use here.......<BR><BR>PC's tend to get goofed up; because of sloppy software; out of Microsoft's controll. Loading up alot of programs on a PC will cause *.dll and other conflicts...............I have wrked with MAC users; that only have Photoshop; and a few plugins; and they never have problems at work......Then at home; their family PC is always having problems; but has several dozens of programs; is web contected; has the wife; 2 kids using it; and also Photoshop.......The graphics artist comes home; and gets pissed when the multipurpose PC has to be rebooted; after Photoshop locked up...................One of my friends machine would lock up; I went to check it; it had no more disk space........the kids had downloaded the 100 meg Matrix tailer; and several others; and filled up the HDA with stuff.........

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here many of our Attorney Clients use MAC's ; and NONE of them use Photoshop...They bring us photos; imbedded in their document programs........Some of these are real version specific; the wring version at our end causes weird aspect ratio problems; and or line wrapping......Many dont know what pixels are; and have received "document" files; with imbedded photos; by email from another attorney; across country..................................................

[Karim Ghantous]

People, people, people. The world isn't going to collapse tomorrow. We have a lot of choice in computing though sadly not as much as we used to. In the '80s we had a good half-dozen platforms: C64, Amiga, Atari ST, IBM, Macintosh and of course some Unix based workstations for heavy duty use. This is what we should be complaining about: that we don't have *as much* competition and variety as we used to. But today we have enough, if only just.

 

And let's not forget that MS became a virtual monopoly only partly by their own efforts. It took a lot of poor decisions, fear, apathy, narrow-sightedness, ignorance, stupidity and arrogance by its competitors (Apple included, at least in the past) to help give MS a leg-up. We may not like the situation, but we can't blame *only* MS.

 

Oh, and for anyone who think Bill Gates is a swell guy because of his philanthropy (and while you're at it, forget all that bad stuff he did in the past, you know?) just consider how he got all that money in the first place.

 

If many of MS's competitors got on with the job of making better stuff instead of wild boasting and making like Hitler and hoping for an 11th hour salvation from defeat, we'd have much more competition and variety than we have today.

[oskar_ojala]

Carl, I di my first Linux installation in the mid-90s; I've installed multiple Linuces since then, both RedHat and Debian, administrated them and programmed professionally on Linux and Solaris (plus used other Unices too, but these I'm most familiar with). So I do KNOW something about installing Linux and would say the difficulty of installation depends a bit on the distribution and your luck. In general, it's a somewhat more difficult system to install than Windows (but Windows can be tricky too on more obscure hardware), but my reply was mainly to the fact that the average user usually doesn't rewrite half the init.d scripts, recompile the kernel every month and manage apache, dhcp, nfs, samba and dns servers. Rather, the average user gets away fairly easily. Most Windows users don't hack the registry, configure IIS servers, setup small corporate networks with DHCP and DNS and configure user profiles by hand either (and why should they?).

 

I have non-technical friends who install Linux just to do regular office applications, do some stuff for the web etc. without any interest in programming or kernel hacking. I'm not saying Linux is an alternative on the mainstream desktop since I don't think it is, but I do think the difficulty of setting up and running Linux is overplayed by some people.

[carl smith]

Ok, I agree with that Oskar. Linux isn't terrible to set up, I agree but of the many systems myself and others whom I know personally and through the web have set up, on the average a Linux install on even mainstream hardware will require more fiddling to get up and running than Windows. But as you pointed out they're not exactly intended to cover all of the same markets. My roommate is a tinkerer and has a laptop dual booting Mandrake 9.1 (I think) and Win XP Pro and he tinkers in both.

[jeff_drew4]

Scott, Platform bashing is a distraction and a way for angst to be released. I use both Macs & PCs daily and both have pluses & minuses. Last friday, I learned my "mini-mainframe" skillset would not be needed in 3-4 years given the immense cost-effectiveness of Unix. This is the 3rd or 4th diversion of my 20+ years in the digital biz. Thanks to the great Yellow or Green fathers for film! Consistency will prevail past my retirement from the whole bleeping mess! Meanwhile, my real darkroom is my cave and I revel in its solitude!

[oskar_ojala]

Carl, nice to be in agreement. I'll admit that I'm a bit biased to say what is easy and what is not in terms of installing Linux since I'm somewhat familiar with its internals, but if someone who I know thinks logically would like to try it, I would not be afraid to recommend the major commercial distributions. Even though I'm likely to read sources and write scripts to overcome problems, I do think that the average user should have the possibility to order a computer, which is delivered home and works when plugged in, without any configuration or installing. Fortunately, this is largely possible today, whether you like Macs or PCs.

[kelly_flanigan1]

What is Microsoft? :)) here I started with punch cards and a slide rule; so this computer adventure is abit old......<BR><BR>When the IBM PC came out; the machine I had at work was lamer than my TI-99.....The TI-99 would do trig functions; multiply and divide to 14 places; while the DOS 1.0 system on the PC had double precision with multiply and divide; but NOT with trig functions.........Microsoft/IBM added double precision to trig functions; with DOS 2.0 ; then it was as accurate as the TI-99 for trig fucnctions..................We used an HP 9000? computer with cassettes; with HP basic; for ray tracing.......Then we got an IBM PC; and it wasnt accurate enough; until DOS 2.0 came out!!!!!!!!.......................My ray trace program on HP basic; on cassettes; couldnt be read by the IBM cassette port; since IBM had a different standard for cassette files; than HP...Neither were the Kansas City standard; which our Physics guy had on his homebrew system at work............We had three different cassette standards on small desktop computers; our seven dwarfs (employer) had a ten thousand dollar system; that had a fourth type of cassette scheme; and a fast 8" floppy drive; and about 16k of memory; and a 300 bps modem; which we leased from pacific bell...yikes!!!!!......The original IBM PC (rev A board) came with a huge amount of ram; 16k; and was expandable to 64k on the board; even more with a six pak plus memory card......Most IBM PC's were with rev B boards; which came with 64K; and were expandable to 256K on the board........The extra 192K of ram was about the same cost as a Nikon F3 body; when purchased from IBM...<BR><BR>Some of the cassettes required a white area; inside the case; to make the software/sensor happy...One could paint a standard TDK tape; and use it.........Our HP machine required formating the cassette; we would block out huge 2k blocks; for each file....<BR><BR>Some older engineers didnt want to use these newer desktop machines....They used punch cards; and did their programming on coding forms; and the keypunch operator would punch out the deck.......Once launched; the more savy engineers would run their programs from a terminal; and get the paper outputs in the print room...........<BR><BR>There was alot of chuckling that the many thousand dollar IBM PC couldnt do double precision with trig functions; it was bought to do ray tracing.......The later DOS 2.0 gave it creditablity; and moved it on par with the TI-99 in accuracy......

[kevinconnery]

"<a href="http://www.jinxhackwear.com/images/products/71bgBlack.jpg">Don't voice strong opinions about things you don't understand</a>" applies to many areas. Sometimes people enjoy a level of fanaticism about their camera choice, film choice, digital over film choice, computer choice, automobile choice...often without any real understanding of the issue.<p>

Ignoring it saves those who do understand the issue time, but it seems to encourage back-and-forth between the ignorant...leading to a more firmly entrenched ignorance--new "facts" that are demonstrably not facts.<p>

And the cycle continues.

[peter nelson]

<I>Ok, I agree with that Oskar. Linux isn't terrible to set up, I agree but of the many systems myself and others whom I know personally and through the web have set up, on the average a Linux install on even mainstream hardware will require more fiddling to get up and running than Windows. But as you pointed out they're not exactly intended to cover all of the same markets. My roommate is a tinkerer and has a laptop dual booting Mandrake 9.1 (I think) and Win XP Pro and he tinkers in both.</I><P>

 

But the <B>vast</B> majority of PC and Mac users <U>never</U> have to install the OS - it comes preloaded on the average user's system. Linux hasn't got the distribution channels, applications, or most importantly, the "culture" to be a mainstream desktop OS for Aunt Martha.<P>

 

I have a heterogeneous OS environment at home that includes a PC running Redhat Linux (I'm also a RHAT and AAPL stockholder) so I've been in many discussions on Linux forums and newsgroups and there is a distinctly different culture to Linux with a significant number of Linux users disdainful of mundanes who don't want to learn to edit the various scripts and files that are at the heart of most Unix and Linux installations. I don't think that most people in the Linux community actually WANT it to become a mainstream desktop OS, and I don't think it ever will be.

[carl smith]

True Peter, but the problem is that somehow the fact that some people do install Mac and Windows operating systems came in to play here and the discussion about how easy/hard they are to install for some reason became a topic of discussion.

 

In other words someone started a tangential conversation with a lot of wrong ideas going on so some folks set out to clarify it.

[lightcraftsman]

Keep in mind folks, that Scott Eaton has posted more Apple-bashing posts on

photo.net than any other four people. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

[hugh stevens]

Ellis

 

Although I agree with you on a great many subjects, I really must protest your seemingly support of Robber Baron Gates. He falls into the category of Carnegie and J.P. Morgan. We ALL still suffer TODAY as a result of their market setting monopolistic practices at the turn of the 20th century. His long time business associate who made carbon coke for him hated Carnegie SO MUCH for what Carnegie had done that after decades of non-communication when Carnegie himself wanted to abate his guilt wrote his former business associate. The former business associate then told Carnegie that they would meet in hell! Till then stay away.

 

 

It is my opinion only that you have to have some pretty lose morals to justify anti-market practices, and as your article pointed out, continued market abuses and snubbing of the justice system in general versus his philanthropic pursuits. I think he is just falling in line with Ted Turner who noticed that when he did exactly the same thing, i.e. philanthropic pursuits; he made MORE MONEY! I mean WHAT could be Bill's MOTIVATION? Guilt abatement with a net revenue neutral philanthropic pursuit?

 

Anybody here remember the days of ATT - Ma' Bell? How they held back state of the art communications ( Europe was starting to best us there folks) because they were exempt from Sherman Antitrust laws? Now we have a situation where a major player is fighting tooth and nail to keep JAVA out of it's code (Sun vs MS, currently pending) and continues to this day to practice anti-market strategies. And the government is either incapbale, or unwilling to deal with MS even though MS doesn't have a government exemption from Sherman Antitrust.

 

I don't understand how ANYBODY could forgive nor forget that crappy code prone to crash, we are always told by Bill that security is a prioirty and yet MSNBC can't even keep their OWN network updated with patches and prevent hacks. We are continually LIED TOO by Bill, MS, et al, and you buy it like candy on a cane.

 

Oh BTW - The overwhelming MAJORITY of IT people I know that work at a major WORLDWIDE AIRLINE prefer running LINDOWS on LINUX, Red Hat if I'm not mistaken. Linux is such a superior OS I can't yet again imagine anyone who would talk about LINUX tinkering, etc; since none of the LINDOWS users I know have yet to complain about lock-ups, which ANY OS of MS is prone to do quite often. How can they tell they are running LINDOWS even though it looks exactly like WINDOWS OFFICE, well for starters it works! Imagine that. Hey, how about someone on this forum call Bill and ask him about his LINUX kill commitee! Do ya think that's philanthropic?

 

O.K. - I missed the IBM chip change, oh shucks, Motorola still makes a superior processor since even at a push and pop level it is much, much better.

 

Well some of ya' out there aren't going to like this reply, so get out your keyboards and start hammer'in. Just investigate some of the issues I've cited above and think for yourself for once.

[carl smith]

not a good way to pull yourself out of a hole there.

[hugh stevens]

Carl

 

You might not think that it was a good way to pull myself out of a hole, but it's the facts pure and simple. If you can't handle the facts, which I invite you to go investigating on your own, then perhaps you shouldn't be responding to this post. Hey, I support our right to comment in this forum, just as I have, but not this post if you aren't going to wake up and smell the coffee. I think Richard stated it best when he said " Fix some of those conflicts, illegal instructions, fatal exceptions and blue screens. That's about all they are good for. The OS is unstable, can't multitask worth a hoot, crashes all the time and is pounded by security problems daily. Face it. The tests were done a lot more fairly than those demonstrations that Microsoft got caught cheating on in court when trying to prove on video that IE was a necessary part of Windows. If they'll openly misrepresent and fake videos as evidence in a court of law, you can be sure that every piece of gospel coming from the Wintel camp is nothing but the absolute truth."

 

Federal Attorney Bois in Thomas Penfield Jacksons court had MS begging in trying to get certain evidence set aside, and in the end it was the very video of how IE operates within the WIN OS that showed the court how much of a LIE it all was with icon's popping up out of nowhere, conflicts, etc. The judge and the jury both just nodded thier heads in a clear 'no' fashion indicating they weren't fooled by MS's bull.

 

Now I'm not TOTALLY against all that you have said, Moore's Law clearly shows that yes indeed something faster will come along. O.K., I conceed that, but you can't argue the WIN OS vs LINUX stability issue. I couldn't care about all the drivers it has at it's disposal when configuring, heck those probably were added in at the insistance of the OEM manufacturer. LINUX is far more stable and superior using process ID's for multitasking, something WINDOWS can't even dream of doing, except maybe WINDOWS locking up maybe when it can't get a response due to a colision on the 100baseT.

 

Remember a nice little computer called NEXT by Steve Jobs, and how it beat the crap out of anything out there, and how Steve got alot of people to line up to write software for it, but that didn't happen since Bill and his cronies essentially shut that down.

 

Hey, why don't you call ol' Bill on the phone and ask him about his LINUX kill commitee - fact - not fiction there pal. Wonder why there isn't high level app's for LINUX? Wonder why LINDOWS is SO STABLE?

 

Whats it gonna take Carl?

[kevinconnery]

In addition to "don't shout opinions on subjects you don't understand", I'd like to add "don't clutter up Photo.net with topics completely unrelated to photography."

 

Talking about OSes is akin to talking about cars: most photographers use them, but they're not even tertiary tools for photography or the business of it.

[carl smith]

Huey, all I can say is there's no reason to argue with you because you're reciting every popular anti-Microsoft blather and it's all the hot rage these days. The truth is a mix of the hype and what you don't want to believe. You won't listen/or just don't understand what you're talking about.

 

"The OS is unstable, can't multitask worth a hoot, crashes all the time and is pounded by security problems daily" Of the computers in my apartment alone, including an [free] SGI Indigo 2 running IRIX 6.5 (with KDE being set up when we feel like it), and three PCs, one running Win 2k and two running XP Pro, one of which (an old Dell laptop) dual boots Mandrake 9.1, I haven't seen a windows crash in weeks here. The SGI is solid and when Mandrake is running it hardly falters. However outside of my assortment of toys I also help friends to get their Mac and Windows system to run smoothly. Both have problems and I have fixed about the same number of each, an interesting thing considering more people of the people I know are running windows. Probably doesn't mean anything.

 

Multitasking: this is generally true, Unix based operating systems (Linux is more GUI than anything else) do generally handle multi tasking better, but I've still brought Linux (Unix), Mac OS X (extra sexy Unix) and Windows systems to their knees with similar levels of use. I don't care about what people read, or have heard. I care about what I've seen in real usage.

 

Of course you're right though, Windows is constantly pounded with security issues. What you probably don't realize is why. Windows is basically the most widespread operating system, so if you're a hacker, whats a better target? The relatively small Mac market or that big best called MS. I know which I'd go after.

 

I won't say which of these systems is better because it's pretty much irrelevant. They each have their strengths although as a user system Windows and Mac OS X are pretty much on par. And as far as weaknesses go, they all have issues there too. If you're so lost as to what any of these systems running on quality hardware is like, you're likely to say one is vastly superior and that the other (in this case Windows) must suck. Well, no. And you're proving how you gather your opinions simply by saying that. I don't love Windows, i don't love Linux/Unix and I don't love Macs 100% but I use them all and enjoy them each for their strengths. I choose to not stick my head up my arse and make broad generalizations based on uncle Steves old Mac, neighbor Bob's musty cardboard box running Linux, or my Aunt Stacey's 2 year old CompUSA (remember when they made those?) Windows machine.

[carl smith]

I also would never say I agree with MS's business practices, or anyone else's necessarily. I look at what many companies do with extreme skepticism. Regardless, I fail to see what it has to do with how the system runs. There are some exceptions but it's generally just mindless ammo for the technically inept to use against Microsoft (or whomever is appropriate).

[carl smith]

Anyway, enough with this thread. Now it's just people spewing wrong information. I'll be out shooting.

[hugh stevens]

Carl

 

"You won't listen/or just don't understand what you're talking about."

 

Oh no Carl, I'm just a University graduate in Electrical Engineering Computer option, and Software Engineering(Computer Science). Well I wouldn't dream of trying to make a digital architecture and write the software to run it. No I wouldn't understand any of this in relation to an IT guy who can actually configure stuff!

 

The day that you create digital architectures and write the software to run it guy, then; and only then you can tell me about MS/WINTEL software/architecture. Until then stick to what you know, cause you can just configure, but you can't create, and there is a world of difference just like the diffeence between the photographer who captures the photo, and the one who looks at the photo in a gallery. Light years apart.

 

It still amazes me how uninformed you can be and still accuse me of the very same. There is no sense in continuing this since it is clearly evident that despite evidence to the contrary you got your head stuck up your rectum. Mark Cicarello said it best, you give all of us a HUGE laugh by expousing your vaulted knowledge of WINTEL business strategy, et al. Well you actually sound like you write the damn stuff for MS, do you Carl?