Hardware

Forget tablets! Four ways to enhance your desktop computer

While the talk of the computer world in 2010 has centered around tablets, the silent majority remain chained to desktops. Here are four ways to enhance the desktop experience.

It's quite possible that 2010 will be remembered as the year that the tablet revolution began. After Apple's unveiling of the iPad in January, I frankly would never have predicted that the company would sell over 7 million during the product's first six months on the market. It has clearly touched a nerve and a slew of multi-touch tablet copycats are lining up to compete with it.

I also think it's fair to say that the tech world has been a bit over-infatuated with tablets this year -- myself included, at times. While tablets are starting to make a lot of sense for workers who spend their days on-the-go, in conference rooms, and on-site with clients, there are still plenty of employees who remain tied to their desks for most of the day and are under a lot of pressure to produce.

For these workers, the desktop computer remains the best tool for the job. And, so we don't forget that this is still the silent majority of computer users, here are four ways to optimize the desktop experience and maximize productivity using some of the latest technologies.

Slide show

Photos: Tools to optimize your desktop experience

1. Increase your display size

One of the best ways to kick up your productivity on the desktop is to expand the size of your display so that you can multi-task more quickly, have more room to work with your most-used applications, interact between two applications more easily, and have more room to view large graphs, charts, and reports. With more display space, you to do these tasks with fewer clicks and less scrolling, and that translates into more efficient use of your time.

Fortunately there are more ways than ever to expand your screen space, and at prices that would have boggled our minds just 5-10 years ago. You can add a second monitor to your current setup by purchasing a 20-inch display for $150 or less. If your computer doesn't have a port to run a second monitor, don't run out and buy a new video card or computer, just get a DisplayLink dongle that will let you add a second (or even or third or fourth) monitor via USB.

Or, if you have more resources at your disposal and want a simpler setup then replace your current monitor with the Dell UltraSharp 30-inch U3011 or the Apple 27-inch LED Cinema Display. Both of these displays support a screen resolution of 2560 pixels wide, which makes it easy to have two full applications running side-by-side on one screen. Also, don't overlook the option of using an LCD TV as your primary or secondary computer display. You can get a 26-inch or 32-inch TV for less than the huge Dell or Apple displays and most support up to 1920 pixels wide for lots of viewing space.

2. Switch to a programmable mouse

Mice with extra buttons that you can program have been around for over a decade, but are often under-appreciated and under-utilized by workers. The one demographic that has latched on to programmable mice is gamers, because they can customize the extra buttons to perform better than their competitors. But, everyday workers don't need an expensive gaming mouse to take advantage of the same kind of performance-enhancing customizations.

Almost a decade ago, I started using the Microsoft Intellimouse Optical (which is still available today). It's a mouse that can be used by lefties or righties and it has a customizable button on each side that you can access with the ring finger on one side and the thumb on the other. I used it to set up the right button for Copy and the left button for Paste. Because I do a ton of copy-and-paste everyday in moving text and photos between content management systems, this saves me a lot of time and hassle. I once estimated that this probably saves me 20-30 minutes per day. I'd bet you probably have repetitive tasks that you could assign to these mouse buttons to help shave some time off your routine work. Also, keep in mind that you can customize these buttons on an application-by-application basis.

After the Intellimouse Optical, I later moved on to the Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 and then the Logitech Wireless M510. Both of these are limited to righties because they place the two programmable buttons on left side of the mouse so that a righty can use the thumb to access both of them. This setup is a little faster to operate, if you're a right-hander.

3. Use virtual workspaces

Multi-tasking is a critical part of running an efficient desktop. As mentioned above, you can make multi-tasking easier by giving yourself more screen space with a larger monitor or a multi-monitor setup. However, another way to enhance multi-tasking is to use virtual workspaces (which can be doubly effective if you have multiple monitors).

Virtual workspaces allow you to have what feels like group of different desktop arrangements for your open windows. For example, you could have four workspaces in a grid, and in one you could arrange the windows for your email and instant messaging software, in another you could set up your web browser, and in another you could have your business application(s). You could save the last one for programs that you only need to open temporarily and then close. Then could flip between them with a simple keystroke -- typically something like Ctrl+Alt+Arrow Key or Command+Arrow Key (Mac). That way, instead of trying to Alt-Tab through a bunch of windows or trying finding the window your looking for on the Taskbar or Dock, you can use one or two keystrokes to move between several window setups optimized for the way you work.

On both Ubuntu Linux and Mac OS X, virtual workspaces are part of the default installation. It's called "Workspaces" in Ubuntu and "Spaces" on the Mac. Microsoft Windows does not have virtual workspaces installed by default but there are several add-ons that provide the functionality, including Sysinternals Desktops, Dexpot, and VirtuaWin.

4. Add multitouch and/or pen input

Who says multi-touch has to be limited to smartphones and tablets? There are ways to bring multi-touch to the desktop that do not involve turning your computer monitor into a touchscreen. That's an ergonomic nightmare, as Apple CEO Steve Jobs correctly noted recently. A better way to integrate multi-touch is with a touchpad such as Apple's Magic Trackpad or Wacom's Bamboo Touch for Windows. These can be used along side your mouse to use multi-touch gestures for quickly manipulating photos and navigating pages and documents, for example.

The other thing that you can add to your desktop experience to potentially increase capability and productivity is pen-based input. Wacom offers a number of devices that can make this possible such as the Bamboo Pen, but the most interesting options are the Bamboo Pen & Touch and the Bamboo Fun, which both add multi-touch and digital pen input and work on both PC and Mac.

The digital pen input can obviously allow you to digitize hand-drawn notes, diagrams, and sketches, but can also have additional value in things such as photo-editing, where it can provide more granular control over the editing process.

Also see

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

56 comments
TrueDinosaur
TrueDinosaur

A 32" display running 1920x1200 displays the same amount of information as a 20" set to 1920x1200. The pixels are just bigger. Good for us old farts. Now, if the 32" screen had a native resolution of 3168x1920 you could display more on it. I currently run 2 28" monitors and 2 24" monitors on my work PC. They can display the same amount of data but the 28" is easier on these old eyeballs. So they are my primary displays.

bboyd
bboyd

I'm particularly fond of my space navigator for CAD work, Knob pulls up/down shifts up/down left/right spins on all three axis. Take a 3D model and zoom rotate pan tilt and spin are all one hand motion away, plus it integrates a program specific button array like a programmable keypad. Really compliments mouse based manipulation. works for other things with a bit of setup. I also use a Nostromo speed pad to fire up programs and perform other functions. all that could be replaced by a good programmable keyboard.

pwarrenz3
pwarrenz3

To my @Home Work PC Maxed out RAM to 4GB. Broke down and ordered Windows 7, skipped right over Vista, at least for this machine. Buying my first SATA internal drive. All for $327 at newegg. Business justification? Besides doing 3D art and rendering, I use it to keep up with current business trends for contracting and consulting work I do so it's a learning machine; I have my own lab at home for testing out applications and software, before I'm introduced to it on job sites. Sure I'd love to buy an iMac but IMHO they are still way overpriced. Programmable mouse? I got the G11 keyboard instead, on a clearance sale. I'm also modifying a large section of my desk top surface so I can use it like a Wacom tablet. I've always felt the mouse was way over used and depended on when keyboard shortcuts/macros is IMO faster and more productive. Less hand/arm movement = faster. Want faster? Learn to program or write scripts. Wide screen monitor? I got a 27" TV/monitor combo 4 years ago. Buyers beware if you go this way. Test it in store if you can. I may add two more 17" to each side at some point, I have a second 15" and it is IMO not big enough. So for now I'm sure I'll be more than happy with a multi-boot, XP/7/Ubuntu, it does or will do what I want it to do. For faster 3D rendering I'll need more processors, RAM and better Vid cards, see next; build a server. In regards to what others mentioned here on tablets finding their place, I tend to agree that they are better off being connected to other PCs. This is part of what I'll be working on for my next @Home PC+, that and continuing to improve on my existing desktop form factor. (I'm seriously considering building a server as my next desktop; multiple processors, more RAM, what could be happier, more productive?) I feel touchscreens have a place but should again IMO be part of the desktop, unless it is nothing more than a dumb terminal in another room or area, then the wall is just fine, which kind of defeats buying a tablet PC, no? Cheers All

Guillaume St-Georges
Guillaume St-Georges

A lot of people forget that you can use a monitor as Portrait instead of Landscape. I use it at home on my second monitor. I have my 24 set up Landscape and a 22 set up Portrait. I like it a lot when it's time to Record music, program my SQL, VB or Web stuff, use MS Office and browse the internet. I use it for Itunes and music players as well. Great for long playlists.

Rayezilla
Rayezilla

...is from CCleaner. Excellent program. It's my go-to guy, fixes pesky registry errors, clears temporary memory caches and lets me look at power-draining programs and startup menu options all in one location. I put it on every computer that goes past my desk and especially on my desktop at home. The speed difference is noticeable almost immediately.

MacNewton
MacNewton

Good report If only XP users would read this Blog. As a consultant, I run into a lot of PC users that haven't got a cue. Stuck in the past with 800X600 screens and a 11 year old operating system, they really need to upgrade, I would hope to a Mac, but even Windows 7 would be a very big improvement. If only they would see that XP is holding them back.

jaumesb
jaumesb

I've been used Windows (and Unix/Linux servers with command line interface) for more than 15 years and just moved to an iMac 27 inch. Can't be happier. The decisive factor was its 2560 by 1440 screen resolution that I couldn't find in the PC world. Way much better than 2 monitors. I find other Apple products quite overpriced and/or too closed but this one is really a great value for me. Combined with WMware Fusion, I can have also Windows 7 & Ubuntu. And the time machine utility with a cheap external USB hard drive is the best backup solution I've used no far (included with the OS). (I'm software developer)

pwarrenz3
pwarrenz3

is where I got my start too, as an electrical engineer designing circuits and later electromechanical systems. Space Navigator for CAD work? Are you referring to products like what 3Dconnexion provides? (Just googled it by the way) Now that (a 3D Mouse) is certainly a mouse upgrade I'd consider, thanks for that! It supports the 3D apps I use in my work, so I've added it to my 'wish list'. Agree with the Nostromo speedpad comment. I have my Logitech G11 set up with profiles and keys set to run either Python or Lua scripts, depending on which app I'm in, so for me more keys on a mouse is overkill IMO. I've also renewed research into voice control and commands (via a software agent) but it is at best a tertiary project for now. I feel it has some usefulness in certain scenarios though. Cheers

Slayer_
Slayer_

Having trouble convincing the bosses, however, my monitor #2 is showing this pink line down the right side about 2 inches inwards from the right-hand side, kind of irritating. We have several widescreen monitors, I want one as my primary and use it as a tall monitor, would be great for programming. I probably have to wait till my monitor dies completely.

jasonhiner
jasonhiner

I know a number of people who prefer portrait to landscape. In fact, a few of them have taken a couple 27 to 30 inch monitors, put them in portrait mode and stood them side-by-side.

john3347
john3347

Much work done on computers is portrait oriented work. Then many users have 4 or 5 extra toolbars lined up across the top of their desktops. They then go buy a new monitor with a 16/9 aspect ratio and do more scrolling than typing or reading because they only have a few lines of text visible. Then, Microsoft comes along and creates applications that consume a couple or three more inches of space all the way across the desktop, and a user is then down to practically no vertical desktop space left. The trend in monitors (and application GUIs) should be toward providing more vertical real estate, not less and less.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I support a programmer who loves her Portrait orientation. It's much easier to see multiple lines of code.

BrianW619
BrianW619

I run CCleaner on my Win7x64 and hardly notice a difference. So you must be using XP.

Lazarus439
Lazarus439

XP works quite nicely on dual monitors and it doesn't take much of a video card to drive them very happily for business applications.

MrKicks
MrKicks

There are many users of computers that can't use Macs or Linux because their applications are only produced for Windows. Although Windows 7 is a vast improvement on Vista, it is still designed to watch movies on so for those of us who actaully work with our computers there is XP.

DNSB
DNSB

How exactly is not moving to Windows 7 (or Mac OS X or Linux) holding them back? Given your average office worker does not spend all that much time looking at the pretty desktop, what do they or the IT department gain from moving to Windows 7? Security? Not a noticeable gain. Speed? Not unless we update the hardware which is a slow process -- about 35% of our computers are not up to running Windows 7 with an acceptable level of performance. Application compatibility? Ah, yes, there are so many applications that run under Windows 7 (or Mac OS X or Linux) that don't run under XP. BTW, around here, about 90% of corporate users have dual monitors usually set to 1280x1024. I very rarely see even home users who still use 800x600 on their old 14 inch CRTs. Most have moved to 17 inch or large LCDs. Perhaps Newton is where all those old CRT monitors go to die?

SFlorie
SFlorie

There are valid points to both sides of the upgrade argument.. though I have yet to be convinced that owning a Mac is necessary for anything other than 'coolness'. It's a huge expense, and so far, one I can't justify to myself or anyone else. The biggest reason/thing that needs to be upgraded is, as this article first mentions - monitor space. I suspect that the poor XP users MacNewton mentioned with their 800x600 resolution are still using CRT monitors. Those HAVE TO go - CRT monitors are so very bacd for eyesight! Not to mention the time saved when you don't have to scroll all over the page/document/whatever you're working on to be able to see it all. Other than that, so long as the OS is stable, and the applications run.. there's no real reason for an individual or small business to upgrade beyond XP just yet. MS may stop supporting XP, but software and hardware vendors will continue to sell XP Compatible items for at least a few years still. Not to mention, that sometimes upgrading puts you ahead of the curve with regards to inter-company communication. It's not as bad with, say, Office 2010 to Office 2007 as it was Office07 to Office03... but it could still be an issue. Which brings me to the PROs of upgrading. If you have to upgrade your applications in order to be compatible with vendonrs/other companies, etc.. then you'll need to keep current with the hardware and OS, also, as the newer applications require more. More RAM, processing speeed, just.. more. There's no simple, standard upgrade suggestion, because it does cost money, and it really does need to be adressed on a case-by-case basis, in order to be the best IT consultant we can be.

john3347
john3347

MacNewton, if XP, or even in my case Windows 2000, is performing the job that is needed to be performed and is doing THAT function as quickly or quicker (or one is not in a production environment where a fraction of a second a few times a day is important) or, in some way even better than a later OS version; there is no cause to migrate to a newer system. If XP, as in your example is satisfactorily performing the user's needs, there would be no motive for Windows 7, and XP would be satisfying their needs, not "holding them back". This statement comes from someone who is using Windows 7 (with XP Mode), Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Linux Mint, each on different computers for different purposes. The latest thing out is not necessarily the best for everyone just because it works best for some! edit: And much to the disappointment of Windows 7 promoters, Windows XP remains my primary system that I go to when I have to do some real computer "work".

thoiness
thoiness

Going to a new operating system means upgrading hardware. If XP performs exactly how they want for what they need it for, why spend all that money to upgrade? With a new operating system comes new system requirements (primarily RAM), and if they can do what they need with what they have, what business justification is there to upgrade? Because it's "cool?" I'd say $500 per PC, or lord help us, $1500+ per Mac, plus learning curves, there better be a pretty good business case for the upgrade. To maximize their workspace, have them buy a new 24" monitor for $150 and dump the rest. Unless you are on the cutting edge of gaming, is there really any good justification for dumping out the money? Would it be considered "being held back" because they don't have aero, or because they don't have a stylish interface with windows that wiggle when they open?

Ron_007
Ron_007

I haven't had a chance to try a 30" monitor, but I am very happy with my dual monitor setup. My laptop screen is landscape, so my external monitor is a 17" widescreen in Portrait. Great for seeing whole pages of documents in Word or pages of code at a reasonable screen resolution. Although now my second screen is LCD, originally it was the "old" 17" CRT from my dead desktop. The thing I prefer about the CRT is that it can be pushed to much higher resolutions than a LCD will support, providing significantly more display area. I often miss it and am tempted to get a 2nd hand CRT for a hundred bucks or so.

ysoitino
ysoitino

e fait lo meteix jaume :)

Slayer_
Slayer_

I don't know anything about it. But it likely supports widescreen res.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Most of them do, but some on-board chips still don't.

MrKicks
MrKicks

I actually use one application where the wide screen monitor comes in handy. That said, I find that there is just as big a problem with the land grabbers on my horizontal space. What with xonobi, help bars, gadget bars etc.

Ron_007
Ron_007

Back when the 17" CRT first came out, around 95, they cost $1500. I was installing the first batch in our shop. I got to one user who had done exactly that, 800x600, with the monitor pulled up as close to the keyboard as she could get it. I almost dislocated my arms straining to lean back far enough to see comfortably. She was nearsighted

MacNewton
MacNewton

Yep, they may have picked up a 19" LCD, but they still run at 800X600. lol

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

As we replace them, I put the functional ones on a cart in the hallway. They usually disappear in a couple of days.

Ron_007
Ron_007

HIGHER Resolution for me! When I had a CRT I always set it 2 or 3 step beyond 1024x768. But along with that I changed the desktop character size to the large font, and changed the mouse pointer to a larger image. I've now downloaded the "enormouse" pointer. It's HUGE.

Ron_007
Ron_007

You hit on one of the problems with CRTs. Windows DUMB default 60hz refresh. Left over from 1990 hardware limits. I am one of those rare people who can see the 60hz flicker. It is annoying. Most people don't realize it is there. But they often appreciate the better image with the higher refresh rate. Whenever I work on someone else's PC after the problem is fixed I always take a couple of minutes to show them how to bump up the refresh rate, how to bump up the resolution, AND how to adjust the horizontal and vertical scan to get rid of those dumb black bars of unused screen space (pet peeve!). "Magnetic fields interact", I had a really interesting yellow ghost on my TV because I had my amp a little too close. For years I thought the TV was about to give up the ghost. My solution to the flourescent lamp problem was simple. Just spend $10 on a cheap incandescent desktop lamp. Or this year $50 on an expensive LED light (as an experiment).

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Mac Office for Business? $175. The accounting program is probably Quickbooks. For a single user, there's another $230. So add another $400 to the costs. Now it's $1000-1400. Even more reason to stay with what you have if it works for you.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

spiking the water cooler with uppers... "Now people are [i]using[/i] with the technology".

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

For many small businesses, that $600 or $1000 dollars can be the difference between profit and loss, particularly in the current economy. The small computer, along with the installed software, is a business tool. If the tool you have now is doing the job effectively, and you are able to work efficiently with it, why buy a new tool just because you can? For example, my hammer is old and has a wooden handle, but until that handle breaks, I see no need to replace it just because I can now buy a hammer with a carbon fiber handle. [i]After the upgrade the Office will be one happy place to work. The staff are upbeat and things just work better. Now people are using the technology. [/i] Really? Because I changed the brand of computer? You should write ad copy.

MacNewton
MacNewton

Most small offices from Vancouver Canada to Portland Oregon use almost the same offerings from 10 years ago. MS Office & IE and a accounting program. Thats it. OK, some my have a game or 2 installed. Replacing them with a Mac Mini or a MacBook will cost under $1000. The Mac Mini is around $600.00 / Over all it's not that much more to upgrade that Office with Mac's then PC's - After the upgrade the Office will be one happy place to work. The staff are upbeat and things just work better. Now people are using the technology.

MrKicks
MrKicks

I have never suffered eyestarin with LCD, but have suffere it severely with CRT. Still, generally, neither of them have had as bad an effect on my eyesight as low energy lighting ;-)

Slayer_
Slayer_

Its starting to show its age sadly, 1024 x 768 goes wonky, but all other resolutions up to 1600 x 1200 are crystal clear. I sill prefer it for gaming. Faster response times, higher refresh rates, and with a CRT, HDR effects are almost unnecessary. Although with the right HDR, it still looks good. CRT's produce a much truer black. have a much higher contrast ratio, and last A LOT longer than an LCD (Theoretically). I also find my CRT much easier to look at for long periods of time. If it wasn't for the damn crazy power requirements, it would be the perfect tech...

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

most of those links are either split between advocates of each side, or have people saying LCDs are better without supporting evidence. I agree with those who say a low refresh rate can cause headaches or eyestrain, but that isn't as much of an issue with the CRT / video combinations available in the last ten years. It's the same tube as a television, and that 'sitting too close to the TV causes damage' was debunked a while ago. From the American Acadamy of Ophthamalogy: http://www.aao.org/eyesmart/ask/questions/q090413b.cfm

downriverdude
downriverdude

your personal experience with CRT's then LCD's may be true, but not scientific evidence regarding the eyestrain issue. The links that you provided are mostly opinions and not medical information with proven data. Some of the opinions in the links you provided actually support the notion that CRT's are 'easier' on the eyes or not significantly different. I am probably the exception to most people in that I prefer a good CRT monitor because of the crispness at all supported resolutions, compared to an LCD with a really sharp display only at it's native resolution. (I currently use LCD displays which are great for a lot of other reasons). I'll also concede that most LCD's are very good or excellent, whereas I have used some awesome CRT's and some aweful ones too. Good luck with your eyes!

DNSB
DNSB

When we used mostly CRT monitors, using a 60Hz refresh rate under fluorescent lighting seemed to cause headaches and eyestrain. Changing the refresh rate to 70-75Hz seemed to clear up the issues so we never did much investigation into the issue. You could also get some nice effects by having two CRTs close enough for their magnetic fields to interact. Then there was the user who strained her wrist rotating her monitor between landscape and portrait orientation. A Radius monitor as I recall.

SFlorie
SFlorie

So - here are lots of links, with lots of opinions, but the prevailing opinion is the LCD monitors re much easier on the eyes. Speaking from personal experience, I'm very nearsighted, and have been since I was in 2nd grade - I don't blame that on computers, since I wasn't using one yet. I'm aware that my eyesight is genetic, however, my eyesight didn't worsen more than a 1/2 point from 2nd grade to HS graduation. I did start using a computer regularly in 1993, and every computer I worked on had a CRT monitor. From 1993 to 1999, My eyesight deteriorated a LOT - I went from a -4 to a -9! In the last 10 years, since I've worked almost exclusively on flat panel monitors, my eyesight has actually improved, from a -9 to a -7.5. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/52709-3-best-eyes http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/crt-monitors-bad-for-eyes-142656/ http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=802360 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060627032039AAEGyrw http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_LCD_monitor_bad_for_eyes http://www.complexitygaming.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2300

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

Most CRTs can be set to high resolutions, at least to 1024 x 768. That's the rez many of my LCD users prefer; they find the higher default resolutions to be too small for them to read. How are CRTs bad for eyesight? Links or documentation, please.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I don't really like shared office files (files set to "shared" mode) but they can be of use. With Excel2003 at least, you should see the other person's changes appear each time you hit save. You can't get real time editing where you see the other cell being edited while you edit a separate one. A quick crtl+s locks your changes in place and syncs in other's changes though. I could see some issue if you have frequent additions/edits by anyone who can open the file. In practical use though, your probably getting far more reference checks than addition edits so your golden. Now, on the down side; if you have history enabled that .xls will bloat very quickly into a huge file. Remove sharing, re-enable sharing and it'd back down to a rational size but this is an ugly manual maintenance step. Really, if XLS sharing is not adequate, your probably better to do a Access front end and ODBC database connection into something (anything) bigger than an Access database file. Better security too since a phone list would equate to customer/client personal information.

Slayer_
Slayer_

I know in Excel 2003 two people can't edit the same document at the same time and have it update dynamically. Still, excel is a great tool, access is overkill for most use, and for proper database use, its useless as well.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

It'll give you a shared phone list or data tables as capable as an Access DB unless you need to run SQL against it for some reason.

jfuller05
jfuller05

what are the main reasons a person should switch from a PC to a Mac? (I say aesthetics aside because PCs can give just as much eye candy as a Mac).

Slayer_
Slayer_

If several people wants a constantly updating phone list, or status, then its useful.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I shudder to think of using it in any business role outside of a filtering step in preparing .cvs from big database dumps for final use in Excel generated reports. Maybe an Access front end for a real database back end even.

DNSB
DNSB

Unfortunately the Macintosh version of Office does not include Access which is necessary for many businesses.

DNSB
DNSB

I suspect that's why MacNewton mentioned that one Mac is going to have Bootcamp installed for those times when only Windows will do. One small office I deal with which had a mix of Macs and PCs just switched to Mac only with about half being able to dual boot. The best of both worlds in their opinion. They replaced all their computers since both their Macs and PCs were getting long in the tooth. Now they have iMacs on every desk with the 5 in the graphics area having dual monitors. About the only area that is not that happy is the financial crew since one of their apps requires them to have Access 2003 so they generally boot to Windows and spend their day there. The cost difference for the Mac only solution compared to Mac/PC solution was low enough that they decided having one hardware platform was worthwhile. One caveat is that they do not have any in-house servers other than a NAS appliance (LaCie?). Email, web, etc. are hosted externally.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Boots in 12 seconds, Has full featured office suite already installed. 50 bucks and its yours.

MacNewton
MacNewton

No need to replace a lot of software, Office yes, about $100. But you get a much needed update anyway.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

If he was being held back, showing him only a single option isn't exactly full service either. Has he checked to see how many of his Windows apps he'll have to replace?

MacNewton
MacNewton

He had no time for TV. Never shopped at Best Buy. He has lots of computers running XP, & had a PC Tech keeping them updated but not informed. So, when he ran Safari and some of my other Mac Apps he was blown away. He was excited about the screen resolution and how clear things were. Now he's going to update to Mac's (One with Boot-Camp) and dumping all is XP systems. Interesting Story, thats was a real live PCer held back by people like you. What a waste!

seanferd
seanferd

Or is that Occitan? Something else?