On Monday 14 September 2009, Vickram Crishna wrote: > While it is true that Apple computers in general are more expensive than > other general purpose computer hardware, they also appear to be cheaper to > operate and maintain, judging from the reports I have read. I know that GN > uses (or used to have) one running a Debian OS, and I trust his judgment > and experience on this point. Apple has always emphasised that its hardware > and software are peculiarly optimised, but I do think that manufacturing > processes and choice of third party components work out more expensive in > order to produce better hardware. Laptops in general don't last very long > compared to non-portable machines, nor do they usually have comparable > specifications at the higher end, so choosing good hardware is not a > trivial decision.
ANY hardware with GNU/linux runs for years. Incase of continuos read/write disk failure is the problem. 4 years being the average life. > > What I am trying to suggest is that the tender issuing authorities may well > have had a good reason to prefer Apple laptops, although the second part of > the description, that they should be pre-installed with Windows XP, > apparently argues against this point. However, I think that any recent > model of Apple laptops will run Windows XP on dual boot, and probably in a > shell as well, but I have never felt the need to explore this in detail or > practice. > > Whom do we seek to educate? Everyone, I am afraid. The reality is that > Windows XP runs on about 70-75% of all computers worldwide, according to a > recent article I came across, and only this month began to lose numbers in > new installations (ie, it is no longer gaining numbers at the same growth > rates). While many of us may not be too uncomfortable with using different > OSes as we move from place to place, and have to use shared computing > resources, I for one certainly won't even attempt to claim the same > competence in doing specific tasks. I daresay the average Supreme Court > justice is not looking to have to climb two or three learning curves in > order to get acquainted with computers for the first time in their august > lives. Unless, of course, the impugned laptops aren't for them. > Incidentally, and this is completely a side-argument, given that 10" > netbooks cost approximately Rs 18-25,000 without discounts, while regular > laptops (also carrying well-known brands, of course) cost at least Rs > 10,000 to 50,000 more, plus OS (except Mac OS and Gnu/Linux), I venture to > suggest that for routine secretarial tasks, it is unconscionable to buy > expensive machines in the first place. It is very likely, across the board, > cheaper and faster to replace an inexpensive netbook on failure, than to > buy and have to service expensive laptops. Data recovery is another matter, > of course, but most of these machines use comparable quality hard disks in > any case. The "disks" are SSDs. They have limited write cycles. OTOH they have extremely high shock resistance. If used as a portable disklife shoud not be a problem. On a side note. The courts would be handling confidential data and local storage should never be provided. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
