Gee, thanks Mark (phidia) for that posting - it expresses my own sentiments nearly to a tee.
Java is just a really major factor for us folks that deal with Java development in our day to day profession. We'd all like to have computers where we have a solid story and not have to be months and months behind everyone else. I am currently a content 64-bit Ubuntu user on a tower PC that I custom assembled. However, I've gone through enough config pains with that system to where I'm gun shy about taking an Ubuntu risk with a notebook. (Does anyone besides Dell offer Ubuntu on a notebook - 64- bit with 4 GB RAM?) I also have to say that I'm sort of boat anchored to Microsoft Word and Excel - the clone office tools just haven't wowed me as of yet. Plus that gives me maximum compatibility with exchanging docs with my work colleagues. Now I've played around a bit with 64-bit Vista on a 4GB notebook and it is seeming crisp enough. Would be great, though, to hear from someone that has lived with 64-bit Vista on a PC that has at least 4 GB RAM (not interested in lesser configs as anything less I regard as just too anemic to run Vista). --Roger On Sep 4, 12:29 pm, phidias51 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Josh, > Last year I found myself shopping for a new computer. I should point > out that I'd been using a Titanium PowerBook for several years, and it > was reaching the end of it's useful life. I did the price > comparison. I really wanted a Mac, but after hemming and hawing over > it for a while, I couldn't justify buying hardware that I really > wasn't going to use. My primary needs were fairly simple: > > - write Java software using the latest JDK (both desktop and server > software) > - surf the web > - run most of the open source software that I use (Open Office, GIMP, > Inkscape, Eclipse, etc). > - I don't play games so graphics performance wasn't that big of a > concern. > > I've been writing Java on Mac hardware for a number of years, and I've > always felt like a red-headed step-child doing so. I've waited > patiently, year-after-year for Apple to update the JDK. I've ignored > the problems like limited JAI support (no native support) and other > issues. Finally I just got tired of waiting. I have no ambition to > be a Cocoa developer, I write Java because I want my software to run > where ever I happen to be. But that has never really fit with Apple's > strategy for extending its market share. They want developers to > create compelling apps that run primarily on Mac OS X. Other > platforms are largely irrelevant to them. > > A number of Mac users with newer hardware are using Parallels (or > similar software) but that's never really made sense to me that I > should waste additional CPU cycles running a VM for another OS. Part > of the appeal of the Mac is the operating system, so why pay extra for > the privilege of not being able to run the OS you want? I want to be > able to run Mac OS X and the latest version of Java without having to > wait for Apple to get around to supporting the VM. I guess I could > run Soylatte, but then I'd always be wondering about the issues I run > into -- "is this a Soylatte problem or is it a Java problem?" > > I finally decided to get an HP DV9700t laptop. The first thing I did > was install Ubuntu (no point in getting 64-bit hardware and forcing it > to run a 32-bit OS). I spent about an hour playing with Vista, but it > just felt slower and couldn't address the 4GB of RAM I had. > > The main problem with the Apple hardware and OS is that it fails to > hit the sweetspot for most Java developers. You either get the lower- > end MacBooks or the higher-end MacBook Pro's, but there's nothing > really in-between that has a lot of RAM and disk space. When you > combine that with their historic lackluster support for Java -- it's > just not a compelling platform for me. I'm hoping that that at some > point, someone at Apple will do something to address this sweetspot, > but I'm no longer holding my breath. > > Mark > > On Sep 4, 8:57 am, Joshua Marinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To a company the market share and revenue don't matter. It's profits > > that matter. And if Apple can make the same profit on 5% that other > > companies make on 15% of the market, then it seems like they would > > want to. > > > On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:34 AM, Vince O'Sullivan wrote: > > > > On Sep 3, 3:49 pm, Joshua Marinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> So I think we come back to "there's no reason why they couldn't", but > > >> why haven't they? > > > > Perhaps the PC manufacturers are content with their 95% market share > > > and are too lazy to the final mile? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
