To Netscape or not to Netscape?

Today I'm contemplating whether I want to install Netscape Communicator in my new computer lab or not. The machines already have Internet Explorer 5.5 installed, and I've had nothing but problems with Netscape and Windows 2000. It works fine if you're an Administrator, but if you're just a plain user, you'll get error messages about it trying to update the registry, or you'll get denied access to part of the program, because that directory was created by another user who used the machine earlier. Am I playing into Microsoft's hands by not installing both browsers? Possibly, but I think most of the blame lies on Netscape here. The only good thing I can say about Communicator is that version 4.74 included updated copies of RealPlayer and Winamp. I think I need to take the time to implement the search option for this web page. I received an e-mail from someone experiencing the same difficulties with Adaptec's 29160 card and the Windows 98 startup disk that I experienced, and I had to browse around for quite a while so that I could find the page on my site to trigger my memory about what I'd done...

Proprietary Hardware

Yesterday, I came to the realization that buying a new Mac, other than an iMac, isn't such a good idea. Why? The Apple Display Connector. Sure, you get a better picture without the standard analog connector, but you've got to buy Apple's monitors. That's right, unlike the previous G4 models, there is no analog connector on the video card, so you've got to shell out $499 for Apple's new display. Think about that, five hundred dollars for a 17 inch monitor? You can get bargain 17 inch displays for around $200 if you shop around, so imagine how fat the margin is on these monitors for Apple.

Of course you could always opt for the 15 inch LCD display at $999, which still is no bargain.

So what if you're like John or myself, and your primary display is a 21 inch CRT? Sorry, no longer available, if you want serious screen real estate, get ready to pony up four grand for the Cinema Display. Sure it's cool, my boss has one on his desk (we got it for free), but would we have spent four grand on it? No way. And it'd be a pain for those of us who create web pages to try to size things on the widescreen aspect ratio display, 1600x1024 isn't exactly a typical resolution.

After adopting many standards that were shared with the PC, has Apple gone back to the days of proprietary hardware design? It's hard to reccomend buying anything but an iMac when you look at the prices for a fully-equipped G4 or G4 Cube.

For example, the new PC on my desktop is a Dell Pentium III-850, it came with 256MB of RAM, a 20GB 7200 RPM Hard Drive, 250MB Zip Drive, DVD-ROM, 32MB TNT2 Video Card, 17 inch monitor, speakers, Windows 2000, Norton AntiVirus and a Microsoft keyboard and mouse. It's also covered under a three-year warranty. It cost about $2100 for this setup a month ago, and I'd classify it as a mid-to-high end business workstation. Say I'd wanted the same type of system from Apple, what would it cost me?

According to what I just ran through the Apple Store, for a dual-CPU 450 G4, we're looking at $3,427, and the Zip Drive is only a 100MB model.

I'll argue it's not fair to compare a dual-CPU machine to a single CPU machine, so let's knock it back down to the single CPU 400mhz model. That reduces the price $600, to $2,827, but I don't feel that's really an equivalent comparison, as a G4-400mhz doesn't seem as fast as the PIII-850 I'm using.

What if I want one of those nifty cubes? For the 450mhz model, you're looking at $2,997, and that's without a Zip drive. Throw in an external USB 250MB Zip, and you're well over $3,100, that's over a thousand dollars more than my trusty Dell.

Sure, Apple hardware is neat, but the OS isn't. If MacOS X were here, and working well, I'd equate it to Windows 2000, but MacOS 9 is not even close. I don't understand the 64MB base memory configurations on these models. Anyone who has ever tried to do serious work on a Mac knows that it can't be done in OS9 with 64MB of memory.

The bottom line? Don't let the advertised prices of the Cube and the G4 mislead you, the price, when you're locked into an Apple-brand monitor, gets much larger. Is it worth it? I don't know, I'm not a rabid Mac fan, but for a business or educational institution on a budget, the PC has a much more appealing price tag.

The iMac is another story entirely, they're reasonably priced, and good basic household machines. They're not great for gaming, but if you're on the Mac platform, gaming isn't your first priority, or you'd be using a console system or a PC. The only problem I have with the iMacs is the 15 inch monitor. Let's see a 17 inch model, and I'll like them even more. Throw in MacOS X, and I might even buy one...

Update: Okay, so I'm off my rocker. John pointed out that the Mac does have the 15-pin VGA connection, as you can see at this page. The really embarassing thing is that I looked at that page while writing the bit above. Okay, so you can still buy a cheaper monitor, but the Macs are too expensive for my tastes...

Bike Trek

I went out and bought myself a bike! No, not a motorcycle, the kind you pedal. Since I now live a little more than a mile from work, it seemed like such a waste to drive my car, but it was slightly farther than was convenient to walk. The solution? A bicycle! I've wanted a Trek since the first moment I rode one in my freshman year at college, but I've never been able to afford one. Today, I bit the bullet, and got myself a nice Trek 4300. I got the "Inkwell" color choice, not the flashy red and black one that's featured on that page.

And no, I didn't pay an outrageous amount for it, I have no desire to own a bike that cost over half what my car did. I paid a reasonable $329, which is a price that I can live with for a quality bicycle.

"TrekBike"

I took it out for a good five-mile ride this evening. I really like it, I just need to get my legs in better shape! I'm also not as nimble as I was at age 12, I've got to re-learn how to take corners at higher speeds, so I stop riding like a sissy.

Black Holes

Sometimes I think I'm the only one who paid attention in physics class. I caught a review of the new Apple Pro mouse over at CNN, via Slashdot, and this comment struck me as being wrong the second I saw it: The mouse won't work on surfaces that pass through or reflect light, such as glass tabletops or mirrors. Otherwise, the sky's the limit.

Okay, now look around your desk and try to find something that doesn't reflect light.... I'll wait....

Find anything? Unless you've got a black hole lurking around your office, I'm guessing you didn't. Why? Because if it doesn't reflect light, you can't see it!

I now have a G4 under my desk. It isn't one of the fancy-pants multiple processor models, and it's only there temporarily, but I am using an Apple product right now. I'm playing with the services for Macintosh on my Windows 2000 servers, and I got tired of trekking across the hall to ask the mac guys to try to connect to this share, or try to print to this printer, when I'd rather just tinker myself. I do have one of the new Pro mice and keyboards, but I'm not using them.

I decided not to use the keyboard, because I've got an LCD display hooked up to the Mac, and the older keyboards fit in that little groove under the display, so that I may reclaim the desk space when I'm not using that computer.

I chose to hook up a Microsoft Intellimouse w/Intellieye, rather than the Pro mouse. I'm smart enough to remember what two buttons and a scroll wheel do, and frankly, the pro mice remind me of the StupidaMouse.

So how did we get some of the pro keyboards and mice, without the new Multi-Processor G4? We got in an order of the new iMac DV's. I actually like the new colors. While I haven't seen "Sage" yet, the "Indigo" and "Ruby" models we have received are pure eye candy. The colors are rich and deep, and they're intrinsically appealing.

I might try out the Pro mouse, just to get a feel for it, as soon as I track down a controlled singularity to run it over...

Linux advice from a Windows user...

I always find it interesting to read about people's experiences with Linux. It makes me happy to know that I'm not alone in getting pissed off at how complex it can be to perform something that is so simple in Windows. That said, partitioning, formatting, and installing Windows really isn't any easier than Linux, just more of us have done it. Now that the installers have matured, it can actually be easier, with a few caveats. A USB mouse won't worked during the installation procedure for Windows 2000, just as it won't for Linux, but you'd have a realistic shot at getting it to work afterwards.

Before I get flamed to death for that statement, yes, I realize that you can get a wide range of hardware to work in Linux, if you have the time to track down drivers and can comprehend the installation procedure. In my experience, the more expensive your hardware is, the more likely it is to work with Linux. Go for the name-brand stuff, avoid USB like the plague, and don't buy a single product, with the exception of CPU's and motherboards that isn't at least six months old, or you won't find any support for it in your shrink-wrapped distribution.