The Great Debate: Windows vs. Apple OS X

Yes, I'm finally weighing in on this. I'm also going to try to be as impartial as possible, because your typical search (in any search engine) for "Mac vs. PC," Windows vs. OS X," et cetera, usually ends up with users finding horribly biased posts that are demeaning and belittling to the opposing camp, while being of little to no actual use. Try adding the word "unbiased" to the second query, and Google's first result summary shows a site with a comparison geared towards "creative professionals," which means it's biased towards Apple from the beginning. The remainder of the articles are either just as biased, or out-of -date. So I figured it was time for a real comparison, with as little BS as possible.

Costs:

Here's a list of cost considerations for choosing between a Windows computer and OS X computer.

OS:
There's almost no contest here, since most people get the original OS with their computer. However, a new copy of OS X 10.5 Leopard would cost about $200, plus the $20-30 that the upgrade to OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard would cost, as Snow Leopard is not sold as a full edition as of yet. On the other hand, you can get the retail edition of Windows 7 Home Premium (which is just fine for the vast majority of users) for only $149. If you don't mind a few limitations, you can get an OEM edition of the same version for only $99. I'll cover OEM vs. retail editions of Windows in a future post. What Microsoft has against it is its incredibly complex pricing scheme. There are four different versions of Windows 7 available in the U.S.: Starter, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate. The first is only available pre-installed on netbooks, so does not really qualify as a choice. The remaining three, though, are available to install in OEM, retail, or upgrade editions. That's a total of 9 combinations, each of which has its own price point. However, it should be noted that only 2 of these prices exceed the cost of OS X, the full retail versions of Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate. In all other cases, Windows is actually cheaper than OS X. So, I'll call this a draw, because it really depends on which version of Windows you'd want if you chose a Windows PC.

OS upgrades:
This is actually a hard one to call, due to a couple of factors. First off, Apple has had 7 total iterations of OSX in the same time it took Microsoft to release 3 operating systems and a total of 5 service packs for those three. However, the upgrades to OS X range from what the typical Windows user might call a service pack to pretty much a full OS upgrade, with most of them falling in between the two extremes. In addition, regardless of the content of the upgrade, each one costs $129. The only exception to this is the upgrade between version 10.5 and 10.6, which only cost $29. So, assuming one bought a Mac capable of running OS X 10.5 back when OS X first came out, the total paid for upgrades would be $645. Unfortunately, any Mac bought this early would be based on a PowerPC processor, so this would be the limit to which you could upgrade the machine, as Apple switched to Intel processors right about the time OS X 10.5 was released (about 2005). By contrast, you could only exceed this value for a Windows machine by having paid for the full retail versions of Windows Vista Ultimate & Windows 7 Ultimate; the upgrade editions of these versions would have left you comfortably under this amount. So we'll call this one even too, just because it's highly dependent on when you bought your computer, as well as its capabilities or potential.

The Computer:
I'll tell you right now, this is where you'll get slammed by Apple. Windows machines are not only cheaper for an equivalent level of hardware, you could get even more capability for the same money you'd pay for a Mac. Let's take a look at what each has to offer.
For notebooks, you can get a Windows machine with hardware that is roughly equivalent to Apple's entry-level notebook for 45% (or less) of the price. And while Mac enthusiasts will make claims about the quality of the hardware used by major suppliers like Dell, this applies even to Windows computers custom-built with mid- to high-quality components. Not only that, but since Apple's switch to Intel processors, Apple is pretty much pulling from the same smallish pool of hardware suppliers, so any claims of hardware superiority hold no real water.
Desktops are a little harder to price out, since Apple does not compete in the traditional desktop market. Apple's offerings for desktops come out of three desktop subcategories: all-in-one PCs, mini-PCs, and workstation-class machines. Only the latter actually comes in a tower.
All-in-one PCs generally have a higher price point. However, if you're looking for a Mac, they are very competitive in this category, with price differences that are usually in the $100-200 range. That being said, you still get more features on the Windows versions. For example, both Gateway & HP currently sell all-in-ones a touch lower than the starting price for an iMac. Each has certain trade-offs, of course, but the extra features make up for it. Each has a slightly slower processor and only an integrated graphics chip. But for the price, you get Blu-ray and HDMI output on one, a built-in TV tuner on the other, and a larger hard drive and touch-screen on both.
As far as mini-PCs go, Apple's only offering is the aptly-named Mac mini. You want desktop power in a small form factor? The Mac mini is the way to go. No Windows PC comes close to the size and power of this thing. The ones that match the size use the Intel Atom series of processors and possibly Nvidia Ion graphics, which, while they make for very energy-efficient and inexpensive PCs, don't even come close to the performance of the Mac mini. And of course, to match the power, you'd need to get at least a slimline PC, if not a tower, which are both much larger. That being said, Windows machines do run cheaper in this form factor, and make reliable basic computing machines.
And finally, we come to the workstations. This is the place where Apple achieves price parity with Windows machines. The only thing Apple has against it here is its tendency to use consumer-level graphics cards instead of workstation-grade cards in their cheaper Mac Pro PCs. However, workstations are not intended for typical consumer use. They are designed for CPU- & GPU-intensive tasks like rendering movies and the like.
So, as far as consumer-level PCs go, if you don't mind a tower, Windows is still king. You can buy or build a Windows PC in a tower that is better than the Mac mini or the iMac for less money. But, if you're looking for a mini-PC or all-in-one anyways, Apple is definitely worth a look.
Sorry OS X lovers, Windows wins here, if only slightly.

Hardware upgrades:
Windows wins here, too, sorry to say. Apple is incredibly restrictive as to what hardware it will accept in its machines. Not only that, but most of its PCs are sold in small form factors, which severely limits your upgrade options, as well as making it physically difficult to upgrade. So, while you can make minor upgrades like RAM (from an Apple-approved manufacturer) and hard drives fairly easily, major upgrades like motherboards are made by buying a new Mac. If you happen to have a workstation, you'll also be able to easily upgrade your video card, assuming you're willing to pick from one of about only 15 choices, not all of which will actually constitute an upgrade. You also be aware that most authorized dealers of Apple parts will charge a premium for being one of the select few. All of this, of course, assumes you might be able to do the upgrade yourself. If you've got one of those wonderfully-designed unibody MacBooks, you either look up the (complicated, time-consuming) way to do it yourself, which voids your warranty, or take it in for service, which will of course cost you more than just the parts. This, by the way, includes the battery too.

On the other hand, it is generally possible to upgrade any component or components of a Windows-based PC. Just like Macs, easy notebook (and nettop) upgrades are generally limited to hard drives and RAM; other upgrades are possible, but usually time-consuming and difficult for the typical user to perform. However, with a standard desktop machine, any upgrade is possible within the limits of the space your case provides, the cooling required, and the wattage your power supply can provide. Most desktop upgrades are simple to make, and guides abound for those that are slightly more complex.

Other considerations:

Well, the cost section ran longer than I planned. Fortunately, we're done with that now, and can continue on to better things.

User interface/ease of use:
This is largely up to user preference and what you're used to. You're more likely to keep doing things the way you've always done them, and also to believe that it's the best way. There are things OS X does better than Windows 7, and there are things that Windows 7 does better than OS X. However, a listing of each would be pointless, as the relative value placed upon each feature is almost entirely dependent on the individual user. I will say that I'm fond of stacks and the Dock from OS X, but Windows 7's new taskbar, which I admit is Dock-like, is probably the best idea Microsoft has integrated into their OS in years. In the end, I think that Microsoft's recent push towards easy access has benefited them greatly. I truly think that someone new to PCs could start using either OS X or Windows 7 and learn the ins and outs just about as well. I'm calling this a draw.

Design:
Really, do you even have to ask? Apple is the winner here, hands-down. They've made their computers (and their other products) just as sleek and nice-looking as their OS. Windows machines are a hodgepodge of various designs; some look good, most are okay, and some are truly horrific. Apple's designs have almost always been inspiring. The only black mark Apple has against it is its unibody products. They look good, but, really, not being able to replace your own battery? It's ridiculous.

Software:
The first rule here is to buy the OS that you need for your software if it's not available on both. Period. If this is a consideration, there is no better or worse, it's just what you need.
Also, if you plan to create music and/or movies, buy a Mac. The software available for the Mac in that particular area is just plain better, and some of it actually ships with OS X.
If, however, you have no need of a specific program or suite, Windows wins on strength of numbers. By virtue of its market share, Windows has more software available for it than any other current platform. This includes a huge market in free software, whether the software is open-source, ad-supported, or supported by voluntary donations. The only thing to be wary of is that not all this software, paid or free, is of high quality. A lot of what is available can be considered junkware, created by people that are simply trying to cash in on Windows' popularity. That being said, there's software to do almost anything. There's bound to be someone else with Windows who's had the same need or want you have. Are you, like me, a fan of OS X's dock? Look up Rocketdock; the interface can be almost identical, and even runs docklets, one of which can emulate Stacks. Need a few more configuration options for Windows Aero? Try out AquaSnap. There's almost limitless possibilities when you have Windows. Windows is also the platform of choice if you want to do serious gaming.

Speed:
Apple technically wins here, but there's a few considerations to be made. First, the magnitude of the difference is often less than a second; the typical user won't even notice that. Second, most/all of the poor speed seen by Windows machines isn't Windows' fault at all. Windows PC vendors typically load a suite of proprietary and trial programs that bog down your start-up times; if I buy a prebuilt PC, the first thing I do is uninstall all non-Microsoft software that's not related to my hardware. You'd be surprised at the difference that can make. Also, it seems that every Windows program and its brother wants to install some junk toolbar, or add something to your startup list. Apple itself may be sabotaging your Windows PC; on a Mac, iTunes is a seamlessly integrated beauty. On Windows, it's a bloated piece of crap, taking up a lot of system resources and adding at least 2 entries to your startup list. If you take the time to control your startup program addiction, you may find that Windows is far snappier than you think. I'll just go ahead and call this a draw.

Security:
Apple does win here, as you might expect. This will not go on without a qualifier, though. Windows 7 is by far the best effort Microsoft has put forth to keep their OS secure. When a former Windows user talks about the security nightmare that convinced them to switch, the OS they were using was most assuredly not Windows 7; most likely, they were using Windows XP or earlier. And from my standpoint as a PC tech, they're right about the nightmare; by modern standards, those older versions of Windows just don't cut it anymore. Also, no matter what an Apple enthusiast tells you, security through obscurity is real. I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier: "By virtue of its market share, Windows has more software available for it than any other current platform." This unfortunately includes viruses, Trojans, spyware, and other general malware. Macs, by the way, are not immune. Apple releases security updates, just like Microsoft; if Macs were totally immune, there would be no need for any of these. Also, your computer does nothing for you if you fall for a socially-engineered hacking attempt or a phishing scam; these are platform-agnostic and can affect anyone. And before anyone says anything about it, there's no way to prove (either way) what would happen if the market shares of Apple and Microsoft were reversed. Security does not have to cost anything, by the way; I use a set of entirely free security programs on my Windows machine, and I've not had a virus or anything else since I moved to my single-user PC. If you want a list of my recommended free security applications, drop me a line at geek.god.repairs@gmail.com; I'll be glad to send it to you.
As a final note, malware authors are finally wising up. They're no longer attacking the OS, or rather, they're attacking the OS less often. Instead, they're starting to go after common internet programs, like Flash, Java, Adobe Reader, and Quicktime, as well as your browser. At that point, it doesn't matter what OS you're running if your applications are compromised. This is, by the way, the real reason Apple bans Flash from the iTouch & iPad; they're trying to enhance their reputation for security by blocking a potential hole, and costing users accessibility in the process.

Hardware:
The latest and greatest is only available with a Windows machine. If you want the absolute bleeding edge of technological innovation, Windows is where it's at. Some powerful custom configurations, like quad-SLI, are only available to Windows users. Macs use good hardware, no doubt, but it all has to go through Apple's approval process before it's available.

Final Thoughts:
Here's my list of recommendations.
For those on a budget: Get Windows.
For basic computing (including small form-factor PCs): Get Windows.
For gaming: Get Windows. There's more games, and you'll spend a lot less on the hardware that gets the best performance out of them.
For the media creator: Get a Mac. If you're a professional and you want more clients, get (and be able to use) both. Professionals are also the only segment I think should use Boot Camp; buying a Windows license on top of an expensive Mac is really too cost-ineffective for anyone else
For those looking for a notebook: Unless you're going to doing some light media creating, Windows is a better choice.
For those looking for an all-in-one PC: Go with what you're used to.
For those looking for a small yet powerful desktop: Get the Mac mini.

I know this was a gargantuan post. Thanks to those who finished it.

Refer a Friend Promotion

OK so in order to spread the word about Geek God we will be running a special between now and December 31! It's called the "Refer a Friend Special" !

Every time you refer someone to Geek God Repairs you will receive 20% off of your next service (parts not included.). Sounds good no? Here's how it works

-Refer a friend in need of one of our services to Geek God between now and December 31, 2010.

-That friend must call us and give us your name and phone number for the discount to be valid.

-Your name will be added to a list containing the number of people you've referred.

-You can only redeem ONE discount per service! However, you can get as many as you want. For example: if you refer five people you get five services at the discount. We will keep track of this for you. Also these service discounts will not expire. You will receive however many discounts you earn between now and December 31, 2010!

-Parts are not included in this discount, this promotion is for service only.

-If multiple computers are involved in one service, this still counts as only one service. No double discounts will be given.

Remember This promotion runs between now and December 31, 2010! We thank you for choosing us as your computer repair gods!

Call us at 847-834-4335 with any questions, or to set up an appointment with The Geek God!

Clear internet service review

In the process of trying to free up some cash, we (that is, my wife and I) decided to dump our cable provider. We barely watch live TV as it is, and the stuff we do want to watch is either available free over the air, or available to watch online if you catch it fast enough. Whatever else we watch we get through Netflix. Part of our attempt to save money was to switch internet providers. Unfortunately for us, the only other provider in our subdivision is Clear. So let's get on with it, shall we?

Cost
This is very competitive, especially for home internet. The only thing comparable would be AT&T DSL, which, in my area, has the same top speed and pretty much the same monthly rate. The only thing that holds DSL back, for us, is that we'd still have to pay for a land line from AT&T. However, the promotional rates offered by AT&T last a full year, rather than the two months that Clear offers. Also, Clear is typical of wireless service providers in that it subsidizes the cost of the "free" equipment by trying to get you to sign a 2-year contract.

Connection
I tried the fastest home internet speed available from Clear, at 6MBPS. What I actually got was an inconsistent connection that ranged from 3MBPS to 0.3MBPS (or lower). My connection would randomly drop speed (or just drop completely) for no apparent reason.
I cannot recommend that any heavy user of bandwidth use this service. Even at my maximum connection speed, I simply couldn't help but notice how slow it was. In my household, we have a total of 7 PCs and 3 other internet-connected devices. Microsoft's "Patch Tuesday" hit while I was testing this out. It took hours. I can say with confidence that I've never had a more painful experience updating my computers. They also market this as being suitable for streaming video; it's not. Our Netflix streams not only took longer to load, they were of much lower quality, with easily identifiable digitization and compression artifacts (think resizing a video on Youtube to full screen).

Customer Service/Technical Support
Very poor. Clear will ask you variations of the same questions, which can be reduced to three simple queries:

1. "Is it your fault the service you're getting stinks?"
2. "Are you sure?"
3. "Can you prove that it's not your fault?"

I spent more than 3 hours with their tech support essentially proving that it was not my fault that I was receiving a bad connection. And their troubleshooting, which was obviously based on a script, was completely useless. In fact, it was so worthless that I was able to finish almost every statement the "tech" made to "help" me. Yes, I've reset my router and the modem - multiple times. Yes, I've already switched to OpenDNS, and I even know the IP addresses by heart. No, moving the modem doesn't do anything. Clearing my browser cache has no effect, and shouldn't because I do that regularly anyways, so it's not clogged.
Now, I understand that it costs Clear money to send a tech out. Obviously they want to cover as much as possible before they send someone out. But the thing is, when the person calling you for help can finish your sentences for you, you'd think they'd realize that all the basics, at least, have been covered. Telling me to do all the stuff I've already done, and redone, again, and then again, will change nothing.
Once they finally sent out a tech, it took him all of 15 minutes to tell me what I already knew: the signal was weak everywhere in my house.

Oh yes, as a side note, want to know which room had the best reception? It was the one in the rear corner, at least 30 feet away from the nearest ethernet port (my home is wired). It was literally the worst place you could possibly put a wireless router as well, as there was no way the wireless signal would have reached every device in the house. Moving the modem for better reception wasn't an attempt at a solution, it was an attempt to trap me in a contract (or into paying the early termination fee) for a service that did not come remotely close to what it advertised.

The Bottom Line

Redemption?
I have talked to several other tech-savvy people I know and a few people who have (and like) Clear. From what I've gathered, the service is one of those things that is either fantastically good, or abysmally bad. If you've got it, and it works, you get pretty much everything they advertise. If you get inconsistent or poor connections, it's almost as bad as dial-up. There's nothing in between. Since I'm located in Aurora, which is close to the edge of Clear's range in the area, I'm only covered by a single tower. Areas closer to Chicago get progressively better reception, though once you get to the skyscrapers the signal gets scrambled again by all those high flat, semi-reflective surfaces. I thought the fact that the tower was less than half a mile away would cover me, but it didn't. It's apparently best to be covered by multiple towers, regardless of distance. So here's a list of my recommendations, if you're considering Clear:

1. Test the connection before you buy. See if Clear is willing to demonstrate the connection speed at your home, or get a friend who has their mobile internet service to test it out. The former might cost you an installation fee, but a bit of wasted money is better than a lot of it after you sign up and find out your connection stinks. Also, do not accept in-store demonstrations as indicative of what you'll be getting. Clear is trying to sell you something, so you can bet that wherever they're located, it will be where they can get the best possible connection to show off to potential customers.
2. Do not commit to a contract if it's winter and you live in a tree-rich environment. Clear's 4G wireless internet can be a very line-of-sight technology, susceptible to anything that would interfere with a typical cell phone signal. Water is among the worst most dampening substances that does this. I have found several reviews online that suggest that the empty winter trees provide an excellent path for Clear's signal, but as soon as the leaves grow back, you lose at least part of your signal. If you think about it for just a second, not only are you losing line-of-sight, you're putting a few hundred or thousand leaves (filled with some water) in the way of your internet signal. This, I think, is what happened in our case; we have a large row of extremely tall trees in exactly the direction Clear said their tower was, so...
3. Calculate your bandwidth needs. Someone like me, with several computers in the house and a high consumption of streaming video, will not be satisfied in the least with Clear's service, regardless of whether they get the best signal or not. However, someone with at most 2 or 3 computers who perhaps does a bit of surfing on Youtube may find that Clear is just fine. If you're getting a good connection and you're used to DSL, you won't even notice a difference.

In the end, I don't think Clear is ready for prime time, at least not here in Aurora. I'll take a look again in a few years; that ought to give them some time to shape up a bit.

Sharing between Windows 7 and Windows XP

Recently, I've been working in a business environment where sharing folders is less a convenience than a necessity. While folder sharing worked for about the first week or so, something happened after the first reboot of the Windows 7-based server to mess things up. When the users tried to connect to the shared items, they received this message:
The specified server cannot perform the requested operation.

A brief internet search demonstrated that this problem is not at all uncommon. However, the solutions given were either ineffectual (a registry edit - see this site) or needlessly extreme (reinstalling Windows 7).

If security is not an issue, I recommend that you simply share the folder with everyone who connects to the network. If you don't want people changing your files, simply set your share permissions to reflect it. (See the following partial screen shots.) Otherwise, read on.

1. Right-click the folder you wish to share. Select Properties.


2. Click the Sharing Tab and click Advanced Sharing.


3. Click Share this folder and click Permissions. The group Everyone should listed by default. If you want anyone on your network to be able to change your files in this folder, select Full Control. Otherwise, you can skip this step.

For those who need to either allow only specific users or require passwords to access a shared resource, this is what you're looking for. With some judicious testing, I was able to isolate and solve the issue. Though in this specific environment we were using Windows 7 Professional, this fix works for all versions of Windows 7, Home Premium and up. Microsoft has finally wised up a bit and given Home users the ability to change file and folder permissions. This fix works if you've got identical user accounts on each PC with identical passwords in a Workgroup-based environment.

1. Get into the folder properties as before, but this time go to the Security tab. Click Edit.


2. If it is not already there, add the group Authenticated Users. Give that group the maximum requisite permissions for sharing that folder.


3. Apply all changes and go back to the sharing tab. Share the folder as before, but this time remove the Everyone group and add those users you wish to have access. You can select who has full control and who does not. Apply all settings, and your Windows 7 machine will now share this folder with Windows XP!

Many of the issues in sharing folders with Windows XP are caused by the Authenticated Users group being removed from the permissions by the system, be it by some system corruption, random chance, or even joining or creating a Homegroup. This group, which is new to Windows 7, is essential to share with older PCs. Without this group active, machines running Windows Vista or 7 will still be able to connect to the shared folder, but nothing earlier will.

I hope you found this guide useful.

On Internet Explorer

I've recently come across several malware-infected PCs. Though different in detail, all these PCs were infected via weaknesses in the same program: Internet Explorer 6. The outcry of web developers, many of whom detest IE6, is obviously not enough to get people off an inferior product. So, I thought I'd contribute my voice to the debate, along with reasons that don't sound like, "I'm lazy," to the average person.

For everyone:
Security
Give yourself a few open wounds, then go swimming in a sewer. This is essentially what you're doing with IE6. This browser has so many holes in its security that as many as 46 have gone unpatched in Microsoft's monthly cycle. It doesn't matter why this is; perhaps Redmond can't keep up, or maybe they just don't care. And even if you ignore that, the methods by which this browser keeps you "secure" just don't cut it any more. Let's face it, this thing was designed for an environment where dial-up was still the dominant method of connecting to the internet; the term "drive-by download" isn't even in it's lexicon. Also, lest we forget, those versions of Windows that ship with or can upgrade to IE6 also use it for Windows Update. Why is this bad? Because you have a product with numerous security flaws with what amounts to DIRECT ACCESS to the most basic part of your computing experience - the OS. This idea isn't even half-baked.

Support for standards
I know, everyone is probably tired of hearing about HTML5 and CSS3. So let's forget about them for now, even though those are the standards that the web will eventually be based upon. Instead, let's talk about good ol' CSS2. This standard was finalized in 1998. Internet Explorer 6 came out in 2001. Microsoft had almost 3 YEARS to get this done... but they didn't. Instead, you now have websites that look and work fine in IE, but not in any other browser; or maybe you have the reverse. It depends on how much work a person was willing to do as a web designer. Now, I'm not averse to a little extra work; I bill by the hour, after all. However, it seems to me (and anyone with an iota of common sense) that a page designed on standards should work the same way no matter what.

For home/individual users:
Familiarity
Okay, I'll admit. I rather like the way IE6 is laid out. It's charmingly simple and easy to navigate. So is a Model T. If you're using IE7 or IE8 and you're really determined to keep doing things the old way, you can get back the menu bar and get rid of the favorites bar. Simply right-click in the area below the address bar (but not on a tab). Make sure the menu bar is selected, and the favorites bar is not. As for the rest, feel free to ignore the tabs. I assure you, except for a minor update in graphics, the other buttons still work exactly the same.

Inability to upgrade
Running Windows 2000? Or an even earlier (shudder) version of Windows? Then you can't upgrade to IE8. You can, however, switch to Mozilla Firefox. Aside from the memory footprint, which they're working on, this is one of the best browsers in existence today, and you can get an add-on for it which makes it, in my opinion, the best browser ever: Adblock Plus. As for corporate users, whose PCs are usually locked down, you may be able to use Firefox Portable, as it requires no installation. It is up to you, however, to make sure your use of this application is within company guidelines.

For corporations:
Money - part 1
I'm sure there's some must-have (perhaps custom) web application that would cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars to update for newer versions of IE or even another browser. By keeping your computers on IE6, you're saving money, right? Except, since the employees are not allowed to use any other browser, you fall afoul of those security holes. I'm also certain you block common time-wasting and potentially infested sites like Facebook. However, no site is hacker-proof. Even the most well-maintained, benign destinations may have suffered a code injection attack or some other mishap that they might not even notice. If your company must use that site, you're more vulnerable than than someone using, well, pretty much anything else. Why is this important, you ask? Well, let me ask a question or two in return. How many security incidents (information breaches, malware infections, etc.) could have been avoided if you were NOT using IE6? How much time is your IT staff spending fixing these issues? This is time they could be using to do other things, like doing projects or finding ways to automate your processes and enhance productivity. In essence, how much is IE6 actually COSTING you to keep? Now, some will look harder at their balance sheets and see that it's not too bad. Probably even less than upgrading your software, and that's fine. Except, of course, that upgrading is a one-time cost, while supporting software is continuous. So, you'll be fine for a year. How about two? Or three? 10? Bet that number's not so small now. There will still be maintenance overhead for your upgraded software, of course, but not as much. And hey, I can understand if an upgrade is not something you can afford to do right away, but it's still worth thinking about, just for this.

Management via local/group policy
This can be a big one. And it can be solved in seconds. Take a look at this: WetDog 0.9. This allows you to manage many aspects of Firefox with policies.

Money - part 2
How much are you spending to make your website works with IE6? Developers estimate that ensuring that a website works with IE6 can increase your development time by 20% to even 100%! Whether you're paying by the hour or as a flat rate, it's quite likely that you're paying a premium for this. In fact, you might be able to get a reduced rate if you ask for a website without support for IE6. Of course, you can't simply afford to ignore what is unfortunately a large percentage of the internet population, especially if they make up a large portion of your traffic. Fortunately, there is a way to bring these people into your fold without spending much extra time on web development. A Mr. Dean Edwards has come up with several small bits of Javascript that can force IE6 (or IE7 or IE8) to act as if it were more standards-compliant than it is. You can find this code at http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ along with an explanation of how to use it. Then your developers can concentrate on common, standards-compliant code, and leave this in for those behind the times. It's not perfect, of course, but it's close enough that your website will work fine in any browser.

(Disclaimer: I am not in any way associated with the above projects, nor do I take any credit for their contents)

First post!

Welcome to Geek God Repairs!

We hope that you'll consider us for your IT needs and we look forward to working with you.

Look to this blog in the future for new service offerings, promotions, and recommendations.