Re: Ho hum :o(

Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Evil_Nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Mandy <mandy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mandy <mandy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hiya everyone

I don't know why, but I'm on the verge of tears again! Nothing has
happened to make me feel tearful, I've just been gloomy since I
woke up!
[snip]

John Lewis staff are generally pretty good, but they'd be more useful
to you if you wanted advice between a Mac and a PC.

Not really, because people like that will tend to prefer whatever it is
they know best. And since they don't actually know much about Macs as
all that (which even Nigel admits) - well, you really can't rely on
their advice at all.

You'd be much better off asking on uk.comp.sys.mac, because while John
Lewis staff aren't particularly expert on Macs or Windoze computers,
lots of the people on uk.comp.sys.mac use both Mac and Windoze side by
side in their professional lives and can give you the best possible
guidance.

They don't sell as
many different Macs as Apple shops and they won't know as much about
them. However, if you're on a very limited budget, they're a useful
place to buy display models at bargain prices - they might have the
odd scratch of fingerprint but they'll be cheap and come with a full
guarantee.

Oh right! I might try that then!

A good point - but refurb from the Apple Store is a good option too.

PC World staff are singularly useless. Their policy used to be that
customers didn't like the sales staff to appear as smartarses, so they
didn't bother to train them. That policy has changed, but it's
difficult to change the culture.

*nodding*

What PC World staff were famous for doing was lying through their teeth
to get sales that maximised the commission of the sales person, while
ignoring the needs of the customer. That's what makes it such a bad
place to shop.

That culture has not been changed as far as I know.

As an example, I heard a sales assistant tell a customer that one PC
was twice as fast as another because the hard disk was twice as big.
(If comparing like with like, the PC with the bigger disc would be
slower because it would take longer to retrieve information from the
disk).

Ah right!

I hate to say this, but the PC World bod was probably right. Nigel is
badly in error with his explanation due to having a lack of accurate
technical information, from the sound of it.

Here's what I think is the reality of the situation:

Bigger discs have either greater data density per platter, or multiple
platters than their smaller brethren. Either way, that means data
*MUST* come flying off the bigger ones at a higher rate, if the disc's
spinning speed is the same as a lower-capacity disc. That is assuming
the discs are the same size in each case - which is so to the best of my
knowledge, but I'm ready to be corrected.

The data's either packed on to each platter more densly - thus making it
faster for a given disc spinning speed; or the disc drive has multiple
platters to give it more capacity.

The interface is often a limiting factor - but if that'll not change
depending on disc size, will it?

So I have to say from one point of view, Nigel has it badly wrong and
the person in PC World - who might have been wrong in fact in the
specific case in question - was at least barking up the right tree.

Because bigger discs are often made using faster technology, the `like
for like' comparison is one that doesn't actually apply to the reality
of the real equipment in real life.

My 1GB HDD here is a lot slower than the 20GB one, and in turn the 20GB
HDD is a lot slower than the 300GB HDD I'm using now. The 1GB HDD in
turn was a lot faster than the 160MB HDD it was bought to supplement.
That's because the smaller hard disc drives are older, using slower
technology internally, and usually using slower interfaces. The slowest
hard disc drive in the house is the smallest one - a 20MB 5.25" HDD for
our Mac Plus. It dates back to the mid 1980s.

And there's not likely to be any practical difference in speed even
between discs of a different size in the same range available at the
same time. The `seek' time is so short these days that it's not really
`human scale relevant', and once the disc drive head has reached the
right track, the speed the disc's spinning (identical for all discs in
one range, typically) is what sets the data rate.

I have simplified things somewhat and ignored some important issues -
but you get the idea.

I've never been in an Apple shop, but they're staffed by sales people
who have an agenda to sell you what they want to sell.

I think we can assume that Mandy is intelligent enough to work that out
herself. But she's going there to find out `what Macs are like from her
point of view', so the fact that the staff `have an agenda to sell' is
completely irrelevant.

I'm thinking of going in to an Apple store just to see if I get on with
Macs... if I decide to get a Mac then I'll get it online :o)

And after asking careful questions to make sure you can get what you
need.

A good approach might be to track down a computer publication doing a
comparison test of the models you're interested in and use that
information to make a choice, but check with the Mac groups that the
information is not contradicted by real life experience.

*nodding*

There's very little point in doing that, since most computer
publications do not make the sort of comparisons that are remotely
useful for or relevant to normal users. Who cares what the benchmarks
are, for example? Not at all relevant to your needs, or mine for that
matter.

The best thing to do is to ask users - ask people who use Macs and
Windoze in their professional and private lives to tell you what's what.
That's what makes uk.comp.sys.mac so valuable for you: it's got plenty
of IT professionals who work with *ALL* types of computers, and can so
give you a much more accurate picture than either me or Nigel.

When checking your website(s) on different machines, don't be fooled
by browser version numbers. What looks good on one machine might well
not look so good on another, things might appear in different places
and even be missing (although they are usually 'there' but hidden
under something else when things get rendered in a different order).

Ah right!

There are a lot of problems with Web browsers not meeting the standards
properly. That's why these things happen in part. The other reason is
Website creation tools not meeting the standards properly.

Safari and Firefox are better at keeping to the standards than MS IE.

At the end of the day, if your website(s) only look good in IE7,
you've plenty of company. A household-name FT 100 company, which does
approximately a quarter of its business over the internet, revamped
its website last year. I reported that their site had problems when
using Mozilla/Netscape and IE6. Their reply was that IE7 was the only
browser they were supporting.

Blimey!

All non-cowboy specialist Web developers test on multiple browsers these
days. No exceptions - because any Web developer who doesn't test on
multiple browsers is a cowboy by definition.

But as I said, some firms that do their own Website development are like
that - they don't bother testing on anything other than one browser, due
to idiotic management.

Idiotic? Yes: once upon a time, MS IE had a usage share of well over
95%. But since then, MS has dropped IE on Macs, and it's never been
available for any Unix at all. Since IE now only works on MS Windoze
computers, a Website that only works on IE is accessible only to MS
Windoze users. Do you want to exclude everyone who doesn't use MS
Windoze?

According to Wikipaedia, the latest state of play is this:

77.35% using MS IE,
15.85% using Firefox
5.25% using Safari
+some others.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Usage_WebBrowsers_Chart.png>

Note that the percentage using MS IE is a falsely high number, because a
lot of people find that many Websites refuse to work with their browser
unless it says it's Internet Explorer, so they tell their browser to
claim to be Internet Explorer to fool the Website - which then works
perfectly, in general.

So well under 77% of people are using MS IE, including all Mac and Linux
users.

Note that 5.25% using Safari - they're all Mac users. 5% of Web browser
usage is from Macs for sure - think about that. Probably less than 3/4
of people are using MS IE for browsing.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CD Doesnt show up in Finder
    ... macs to try the CD in unfortunately. ... registered the disc, but when browsing the disc, it is empty. ... uninstall the Test Drive version of the software before installing the ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office)
  • Re: Hi
    ... with problems in people's homes than Macs, ... suppliers are able to pass on kit at a lower cost, ... So you say that most decent suppliers provide the OS on disc, ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: One more Spotlight moan
    ... as to be useless. ... a proper Finder window and thus sortable by size, ... old Macs get turned into disc images and stuck on the disc for the new ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Back-up of factory shipped OSX disk
    ... get past the limitation that his Panther disc will only work on certain modelof Macs. ... Disc Mode, for instance) it will install. ... I know I've read several times in comp.sys.mac.* that the OS is functionally identical and that the OS installed "shipped-with" discs will work fine regardless of Mac. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.apps)
  • Re: BBC news "new" website
    ... I'm aware of the problems with Flash, but as that's what the BBC website ... it sucks on older macs like mine. ... website, as it's interface isn't affected like Safari or Firefox, ... Reboot into single user mode. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)