 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
5 Reasons Windows 7 Is A Better Deal For Students Than Snow Leopard | |
|
||
| Time: 08:13 EST/13:13 GMT | News Source: CRN | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
The Windows 7 special offer comes as Apple makes a push to grab share from Microsoft with Snow Leopard pricing aimed at undercutting Microsoft for the first time ever. Indeed, Apple, which released Snow Leopard on August 28, has gone to great lengths to price its products at a premium compared to Microsoft. Nevertheless, here are five reasons why Windows 7 is a better deal for students than Snow Leopard. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 40 of 40 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 23603 (96.21.51.190) at Saturday, September 19, 2009 08:53:16 AM |
|
waiting for Latch comments ..... :-)
And like it or not...it is true. |
| #2 By 37 (12.189.101.2) at Saturday, September 19, 2009 10:12:32 AM |
| That article almost looks like it was written by Microsoft themselves. Amazing koolaid break there. |
| #3 By 11888 (174.88.89.70) at Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:53:38 PM |
| Actually it sounds like it was written by Fox News. |
| #4 By 2231 (72.5.151.4) at Sunday, September 20, 2009 01:26:22 AM |
| How do you take this article seriously when the word 'security' is not mentioned once? |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 21, 2009 10:09:03 AM |
|
#1: I'm not a Mac guy and couldn't care less. I'm still waiting for your comments here:
/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=47867&Group=1 btw is "I'm waiting for Latch's comment" the new "First post!"? It seems that's all you have to offer here these days. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 21, 2009 10:11:26 AM |
|
I actually had a glance at the article and point #3 almost made me spit out my Coke. MS playing nice with open source?? This guy is either hauling water for the Kool-Aid squad or he hasn't been paying attention for the past decade.
Edit: Point #2 is equally as stupid in the last paragraph. Kids should be taught computing concepts in general and not "Microsoft" skills. Kids should not be groomed to be dependent on one vendors products. This post was edited by Latch on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10:19. |
| #7 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Monday, September 21, 2009 11:13:43 AM |
| #6: regarding your comment about vendor neutrality--nice in theory, but useless in reality. That's like teaching programming on a conceptual level without teaching any particular language. It's a disservice to their education. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 21, 2009 11:52:50 AM |
|
#7: regarding your comment about vendor neutrality--nice in theory, but useless in reality.
I disagree. Everyone I know in the IT field right now grew up learning generic computing and not Microsoft computing. We somehow all managed to figure out the OSes and apps as we went along. Even my parents and in-laws managed to pick up a few things. Yet, if we don't teach kids Microsoft products, they're doomed to a life of stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? That's like teaching programming on a conceptual level without teaching any particular language. Back in the day, we were first taught logic and then taught how to develop an algorithm in pseudo-code. From there you translated the pseudo-code into the particular language you were using. Also, we had separate units where we learned BASIC, COBOL, Fortran, Pascal and assembly so we weren't tied to just one language. |
| #9 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Monday, September 21, 2009 01:41:32 PM |
| #8: that's the point... if you took a class that only taught pseudocode, it would be useless in reality. Try getting a job with only "generic computing" experience. Looks real nice on a resume. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 21, 2009 02:18:16 PM |
| #9: You can learn the basics of desktop computing with Linux, Mac or Windows -- not just Windows, and you can learn the majority of what an office software suite has with OO. The schools can save some coin at the same time. The only one who loses in this scenario is Microsoft. Now, you can always invent a contrived scenario where only MS software will do, but I doubt that will come into play with most students. |
| #11 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Monday, September 21, 2009 02:41:45 PM |
|
#10: "You can learn the basics of desktop computing with Linux, Mac or Windows -- not just Windows"
You learn what the world uses. In the early 90s it was VB and PowerBuilder, then came JAVA, now it's C# and Java. Until Open Source becomes more ubiquitous it is useless to teach it. |
| #12 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Monday, September 21, 2009 02:57:13 PM |
| #10, so you'd rather a student go into a prospective employer with "Open Office experience" rather than "Microsoft Office experience" on their resume??? That's putting personal philosophical agendas ahead of what's best for the student. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Monday, September 21, 2009 03:21:55 PM |
| #13: If someone is looking for a job and the job req specifically asks for MS Office, then they better know MS Office to some degree. Even then, Office as a term is used like 'Kleenex'. They say they want Office, but I doubt they're looking for hardcore Office experts. If you've used any office suite, you can usually fake your way through another. I use Office every day, yet I have no formal training and I certainly didn't get any in high school. Same goes with most people I know. My wife has advanced formal training and it has served her well, but her (old) job required that level of Office knowledge. I'm saying students should be exposed to word processors, spreadsheets and databases -- just not necessarily Microsoft's and especially when there are free versions available to under-funded school boards. Lastly, any version of Office taught to schoolkids will be outdated by the time they enter the workforce. Yes, they can learn newer versions of Office just like they can learn a slightly different OpenOffice. A lot of the same concepts apply. |
| #14 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Monday, September 21, 2009 04:32:44 PM |
|
(Reply to your post while posting, eh? :P)
#13: I'm not buying it. Regardless of whether most suites offer similar features, I don't think most businesses look at Office suites like they do 'Kleenex.' If you put "generic office experience" on a resume and send that to HR and they have another candidate with "Microsoft Office experience," I'm quite sure "generic office experience" is going to count against the person. It's much like back in the days of WordPerfect's dominance. They may be able to learn the new features, sure... but then what is the point of "experience"? On a more practical level, unless the need within documents/files is exceptionally limited (filling out pre-made, fill-in-the-blank forms, one-off memos with little concern for consistency/quality/etc.), that cursory level of familiarity tends to be a liability in an organization, introducing risks and requiring others to do spot-checking and cleanup work. Interestingly, your point would be kind of an indictment of OpenOffice... if the claim is that OpenOffice's features are so interchangeable with Microsoft Office's such that training isn't even required, then OpenOffice truly is merely a total copycat knock-off of MS Office. |
| #15 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at Monday, September 21, 2009 05:21:48 PM |
|
"then OpenOffice truly is merely a total copycat knock-off of MS Office"
Can anyone name a piece of opensource software that isn't a knock-off? |
| #16 By 15406 (99.240.76.72) at Monday, September 21, 2009 06:36:19 PM |
|
#14: I'm not buying it.
I'm not selling anything. MY opinions are yours for free. Interestingly, your point would be kind of an indictment of OpenOffice... if the claim is that OpenOffice's features are so interchangeable with Microsoft Office's such that training isn't even required, then OpenOffice truly is merely a total copycat knock-off of MS Office. You are aware that there were word processors, spreadsheets, presentation graphics and databases before MS Office came along, eh? #15: Can anyone name a piece of opensource software that isn't a knock-off? Don't go there. We all know that much of MS's software portfolio are copies of already-existing products either made in-house or acquired from third-parties. |
| #17 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at Monday, September 21, 2009 10:07:36 PM |
| Yes, but the question... |
| #18 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:38:14 AM |
| #15: How about Audacity? |
| #19 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:45:22 AM |
|
#16, ok, now you're just dodging. ;) I am quite aware that there are others, and there still *are* others. But Google Docs isn't Microsoft Office, neither is WordPerfect Microsoft Word. Beyond the simplest of documents, WordPerfect requires training quite different from Word--because it's not a copy of Word.
Again, training on a niche product when more than 9 out of 10 businesses use something else is a disservice to students. |
| #20 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 05:57:54 AM |
| #15: that isn't a knock-off? |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 08:20:40 AM |
|
#17: Unless you are the very first entrant in a new software segment, then you're a knock-off in a way. But that's not a bad thing as this is the way that technology evolves. As I sit here typing this, I cannot think of a single thing that MS has made that didn't have an ancestor.
#18: Audacity is a sound editor. Many sound editors have been made long before Audacity saw the light of day. #19: No, I'm not dodging anything. You are right in that the methodology to perform a task in Office Versus OO is different, but that's just the mechanics. What I'm saying is that the two office suites are conceptually similar with a lot of feature overlap. If you know how to mail merge in Office, it's not going to be too hard for you to figure out how to do the same in OO. You seem to believe that the differences between OO and Office are a problem, but it's not an issue when it's differences between one version of Office to another. Again, training on a niche product when more than 9 out of 10 businesses use something else is a disservice to students. I would agree if the students in question were adults in business school, but for grade school kids, it's not a disservice. They learn general concepts and it costs the school less. |
| #22 By 47914 (75.150.156.89) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 09:02:46 AM |
|
#21 "I would agree if the students in question were adults in business school, but for grade school kids, it's not a disservice. They learn general concepts and it costs the school less. "
Our school district BOE tried to implement OO district wide to save money over MS Office. When the taxpayers, primarily white collar professionals, caught wind, the implementation was abandoned only 3 months into the school year. The taxpayers wanted their kids to learn what the business world uses, currently MS OFFICE. "generic computing" doesn't cut it. |
| #23 By 11888 (198.103.167.20) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 09:05:43 AM |
| It's sad that we're raising our children to be cogs in a corporate machine. |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 09:22:39 AM |
|
#22: So, once again, political interference wins the day for Microsoft. I must admit that I find it hard to believe that that many parents care about something like that to cause a fuss. What board was this and do you happen to have a link?
#23: At least someone is hearing what I'm saying. |
| #25 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:25:55 AM |
|
#23, 24: for the same reasons I outlined above. They care about their kids' educations and the opportunities it provides. Cogs in the corporate machine? Way to reduce the productive activities of a large part of society to a four-letter word of uselessness. And some people would be quite thankful to have those corporate jobs right now.
|
| #26 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:34:59 AM |
|
#21: you are speaking from the perspective of someone that "gets" IT. I wish it true of the general population, but it's not. Even then, however, the points about experience and liability still stand--you hire a person with experience and a particular skill set precisely because they aren't stumbling through a program, "figuring it out" as they go. That's how many costly mistakes are made. There is also a familiarity with just about any program through continued use that is invaluable--learning the quirks that every program invariably has, and how to deal with them. Much of that is not conceptual, and much of that cannot be easily picked up in classroom/training sessions.
I would hardly limit Microsoft Office to "business school." Grade school... I can see a better case for arguing for OO there. Again, however, the experience you gain over time with an application is invaluable. |
| #27 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:09:53 PM |
| #26: I see your point of view and I don't want to keep beating this dead horse. Besides, now I'm busy chuckling about how MS is copying the Apple retail stores and poaching their managers and employees. They are absolutely shameless. |
| #28 By 11888 (198.103.167.20) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40:51 PM |
|
I'm just saying that I would never reduce my expectations of children to be so low that I think they need to learn Office in school.
It's very disheartening to realise that one lives in times of such lowered expectations. How did we go from encouraging children to dream big to making sure they know PowerPoint? Any idiot can figure out the fundamentals of Office in an afternoon. Who are these dolts who complain to a school that their child isn't using MS Office in the classroom? I can only wish that more children get to have the type of parents that I did - where creativity and discovery is paramount. |
| #29 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, September 22, 2009 01:55:14 PM |
| #28: I am partially a product of the pendulum swinging too far that direction. Creativity and discovery are important, but they must be balanced with practical (not trying to quibble over semantics here) skills. Dreaming big is great, but... a la Caddy Shack, "The world needs ditch diggers, too." Most of life is relatively mundane. But by no means are those less necessary. |
| #30 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:38:07 AM |
|
I have to agree with MrRoper and Latch. As someone who has been programming for almost 30 years, and has worked with programmers for almost 20 years, I would much rather work with someone with good general programming skills and is knowledgeable in a number of programming languages and environments than someone who is an expert at Visual Basic in Visual Studio. They may know the tool way better than I and others do, but they invariably demonstrate that they spent way more time learning the ins and outs of the tool, and not enough time learning how to do the job correctly. General skills are transferable when a new environment is required, or a radical change to a familiar tool is forced upon them. I have talked to many employers, and have been one myself from time to time, and most of them preferred the transferable general skills to expertise in a single skill. In other words, being knowledgeable in programming in general, including object oriented methodologies, design patterns, several OO languages, etc., is much preferable to being an expert in Visual Basic or even Visual C++.
Rxcall also mentioned that "You learn what the world uses. In the early 90s it was VB and PowerBuilder, then came JAVA, now it's C# and Java. Until Open Source becomes more ubiquitous it is useless to teach it. " Umm, forgive me for saying this, but you just advocated teaching C# and Java, both of which are Open Source and ECMA standards. I love how you say they should be taught because they are in high demand and ubiquitous, but should not be taught because they are open source and therefore useless. Brilliant bit of logic, that is. You might want to try proof reading your post before hitting the Post button. |
| #31 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Wednesday, September 23, 2009 01:28:16 PM |
|
#31: I think you misunderstood my point. General skills are important too--but that doesn't mean it should *replace* specific skills. Those are important also... particularly when you have a de facto standard (in this case, well over 90% market share).
Regarding Open Source... I don't think that's Rxcall's point, either. It's about teaching widely-used skills rather than niche ones. If OpenOffice had 90% market share, that's what schools should teach. |
| #32 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at Wednesday, September 23, 2009 01:48:36 PM |
|
To use an automobile analogy, if you were running a service station, would you want to hire a mechanic to be an expert on GM motors and systems, or would you want a mechanic who has a good grasp of motors and drive train systems in general, who is able to adapt to changes in design from one make and model to another, or even differences from one year of a vehicle to another? A mechanic who specializes on Chevys is going to be at a disadvantage when a Prius or a Chevy Volt rolls into the shop.
This is true of programmers as well. A generalist, which I admit to being myself, is better able to jump from one technology to another, such as going from VAX basic to Microsoft Quick Basic, to C, to Objective-C, to C++, or to C# and Java. As I do both C++ and C# these days, with a smattering of Java for fun, I can tell you that these require different ways of looking at things, and trying to do C# or Java "the C++ way" would present some nasty challenges to overcome. Single versus multiple inheritance is a small example of what I am talking about. A wider set of experiences with multiple tool sets makes it easier to adapt to changes from one version to another, or moving from one development environment to another. Unless you are applying for work at Microsoft or Oracle, having a wider set of knowledge of multiple tools is a benefit more than it is a hindrance. ETA: I am not aiming this specifically and exclusively at Microsoft, either, should anyone be wondering. I would say the same things about database servers as well, as I believe someone with a good database background on multiple databases would be preferable to someone who has only used, and was an expert in, Oracle databases. This post was edited by TheSkepticCanuck on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 13:52. |
| #33 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Wednesday, September 23, 2009 06:13:06 PM |
|
#32: but the car market doesn't reflect the reality of this situation. To match your analogy against the real world, say well over 90% of people drive a Prius. Now, mechanic schools say instead of teaching about how to service the Prius, they will instead teach how to service the Fiat Panda. They're both cars, right? As an employer, when you have two potential candidates come to you, would you rather hire the one that has worked on a Prius for years already, or the one that has worked on a Panda? Which one would you rather have work on your Prius?
Again, I'm not saying that this comes ***instead*** of learning general principles. Schools must teach that as well. But there is no "Generic Office Suite v12" out there... at some point, in this case, you have to pick a tool to use and a skill to learn. ***Both*** practical skills and general principles are important. |
| #34 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at Wednesday, September 23, 2009 06:36:50 PM |
|
#32: Wow, I didn’t know we had a charter member of the Obtuse Society posting here.
To clarify, I believe our education systems should use the de facto standard of the day. If some day that is Open Office, then so be it. Clear enough? “having a wider set of knowledge of multiple tools is a benefit more than it is a hindrance.” Thanks for the tip, Captain Obvious. Everyone here thought having multiple diverse skills was a hindrance. “if you were running a service station, would you want to hire a mechanic to be an expert on GM motors and systems or would you want a mechanic who has a good grasp of motors and drive train systems in general” I wonder how you'd feel taking your brand new Audi in for service and some pimply-faced kid fresh out of vocational school with a <keanureeves >“ good grasp of motors and drive train systems in general”</keanureeves> opens your hood and starts tinkering around. Analogies suck like a prostitute – that’s why I never use them. This post was edited by rxcall on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 18:38. |
| #35 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, September 24, 2009 08:33:32 AM |
|
#34: Wow, what a vitriolic asshole you are. No wonder the only people to post here are the hardcore fanboys like yourself. If this is how newcomers to the Activewin forums are routinely treated, then it is no wonder there are no new people interested in sticking around here. Maybe I should see if I can find a Windows related forum somewhere that has fewer assholes like yourself, and go back to merely lurking here once in a while when bored. <sarcasm> Thanks for the warm welcome. </sarcasm>
ETA: I think of this site as the anti-Slashdot, or Slashdot of the pro-Microsoft set. A lot fewer users, but the few that are here are just as nasty towards anyone, new or old, with a point of view that doesn't kiss the proverbial Microsoft ass. This is exactly the same thing that makes Slashdot unpalatable for those of us who are merely looking for an intellectual and thought provoking discussion without all the hate. This post was edited by TheSkepticCanuck on Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 09:08. |
| #36 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, September 24, 2009 08:46:10 AM |
|
#33: My experience has been that by the time grade school and high school students graduate from post-secondary institutions, most of the current defacto standards are either gone, or sufficiently different as to bear little resemblance to what is currently being used. What particular niche they are interested in will also determine what they should be learning. If someone is interested in web programming, and goes to a Java shop to work, then all the Visual Studio experience will help little when he is given a system running Eclipse or NetBeans. Conversely, a Windows desktop application programmer will be well served to become experienced in Visual Studio. A secretary would need to have a better grasp of MS Word and other MS Office components than would a programmer, who can get along quite well with general office suite skills, which are easily transferred to whatever word processor and spreadsheet program the company wants to give them, as most programmers I know only use a very tiny subset of a word processor's features when typing up a functional specification or design document.
However, I do agree that both general and specific skills should be taught, but the students would be better served to be taught specifics of a programming language than specifics of Visual Studio or Eclipse. Being a proficient C++ or Java programmer is more valuable than being a so-so programmer who is a wiz with Visual Studio itself. Teach the skill, not the tool used to implement that skill. YMMV. |
| #37 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at Thursday, September 24, 2009 09:40:24 AM |
|
#35, 36,
Actually, rxcall is one of the nicer folks on the board and he'll share an objective opinion regardless of which side of an issue he's on. Classically trained method oriented programmers with solid business skills are what we look for. We've noted that they are able to learn any platform more quickly and since we never know what we're going to encounter in our work, the stronger the base skills an engineer has, the better. Strong math skills are particularly important to us, as we do everything from the stick first - e.g., from pencil and paper to prove the calc and then and only then do we commit to code. While we all really like the IDE MS offers, it isn't what drives. Requirements drive and these are rooted in practical considerations. So often we have to learn a new platform - say a mining operations suite that was custom built and added to over time. If we only knew one platform we would not know where to start and just last month, we had to convert a hospital's data that was based upon a system deployed in 1983. Having a lot of old timers around (in relative terms) that were trained long before modern IDE's were available helps a lot. TheSkepticCanuk - post away - all views are most welcome. I mean, we've had Latch in re-hab for years and we all hope one day that the meds will help <kidding, of course> |
| #38 By 241766 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:14:02 AM |
|
#37: "Actually, rxcall is one of the nicer folks on the board and he'll share an objective opinion regardless of which side of an issue he's on."
This actually reinforces what I said. If he is one of the nicer ones here, then I severely understated the problem. "Classically trained method oriented programmers with solid business skills are what we look for. We've noted that they are able to learn any platform more quickly and since we never know what we're going to encounter in our work, the stronger the base skills an engineer has, the better." Exactly! This is what I have been saying all along! Good solid base skills are transferable, and can do one well in many diverse situations. This is true in development environments as well as desktop productivity applications! I'd rather a person who knows the basics of mail merge and when to use it or not use it, than someone who is technically proficient at doing it in MS Word, but lacks the basics. Obviously, someone who knows both is even more valuable, but the base skill is 90% of the value, and the specific tool knowledge is 10% of the value. Ideally, both would be preferred to be taught, maybe even teaching how to do it on a couple of different tools, but time and resources being what they are, at least make sure the basics are well taught. As someone who has used MS Word since version 2, switching from WordPerfect for Windows 2, the tools change radically over time, but the understandings of basic principles are eternal, at least until the next big paradigm shift occurs. What good will specific MS Word skills be when the GUI is replaced by a VOI (Voice Activated Interface). Basic paragraph formatting and layout skills will transfer, but the keyboard shortcuts likely will be less useful. |
| #39 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Thursday, September 24, 2009 07:46:37 PM |
| Someone needs a skin graft - preferably the thicker variety. |
| #40 By 245545 (94.41.94.12) at Monday, October 19, 2009 11:49:23 AM |
|
What type of drunk are you? Are you an angry drunk? Are you a person that talks a lot when they get drunk? Are you a person that does stupid things when they get drunk. ECT.
What type of drunk are you? For, example http://portishead.forums.umusic.co.uk/members/casodex.aspx <a href=http://portishead.forums.umusic.co.uk/members/casodex.aspx>Buy Casodex</a> |
