Slashdot Mirror

I know of no database that actually does a single query in parallel, but I'm not sure it would be any more efficient, because there is only one disk

There is more than one disk. Remember we're not running databases on your laptop. The first time I saw one table spread out over multiple disks it was an Informix database and the feature was called Fragmentation. I believe SQL Server calls it sharding. Once you do that, it's easy enough to do your queries in parallel. Informix not only let you roughly configure how many threads and how much memory to use for parallel queries, but it did all of this over 10 years ago. Here's a link to the relevant documation: http://docs.rinet.ru/InforSmes/ch20/ch20.htm#Heading4

compare:

http://video.codegear.com/php/hello/hello.html

and
http://docs.rinet.ru/ActiveVB/f22-3.gif ...

Why does this IDE remind me of my visual basic 3 days (not to say that there's anything wrong with that). I guess I've been staring at eclipse for too long.

Class A (formerly - 5 stars). An ideal band; sure enough, some of its output might be flawed, but it's the highest standard by which I judge everything else. It must meet such an awful lot of selective criteria that only three of the bands in existence (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the Who) have received this rating; Bob Dylan also passed the plank, although it was a tough choice for me - he's put out quite a solid load of stinkers. Still, the very inhumane strength of his 1965-66 records alone managed to get him through.

And from the rating page

Never To Be Topped
[15 albums]
Go and buy this now. These are superalbums by the few really great and timeless masters of rock: the cream of the cream of the cream. These records set the highest standard for all those that follow them and they probably won't be superated by anybody, not in the nearest couple thousand years. And yes, maybe I'm a fool for giving the highest mark to five Beatles' albums in a row, but fifteen years of Beatle-listening haven't cured me of the attitude.

I guess you could say he likes the Beatles, and thinks they are great. And this is from someone who stumbled over their work without peer pressure that 'hey, these guys are great.'

Class A (formerly - 5 stars). An ideal band; sure enough, some of its output might be flawed, but it's the highest standard by which I judge everything else. It must meet such an awful lot of selective criteria that only three of the bands in existence (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the Who) have received this rating; Bob Dylan also passed the plank, although it was a tough choice for me - he's put out quite a solid load of stinkers. Still, the very inhumane strength of his 1965-66 records alone managed to get him through.

And from the rating page

Never To Be Topped
[15 albums]
Go and buy this now. These are superalbums by the few really great and timeless masters of rock: the cream of the cream of the cream. These records set the highest standard for all those that follow them and they probably won't be superated by anybody, not in the nearest couple thousand years. And yes, maybe I'm a fool for giving the highest mark to five Beatles' albums in a row, but fifteen years of Beatle-listening haven't cured me of the attitude.

I guess you could say he likes the Beatles, and thinks they are great. And this is from someone who stumbled over their work without peer pressure that 'hey, these guys are great.'

George Starostin describes his introduction to the Beatles somewhat differently. As in someone really not exposed to them who now has very definite views.

Even a decently-sized Delphi app with a bunch of forms and controls can easily weigh in at well over 1MB

Please hand in your geek card and badge, do not pass go and do not collect £200.

it looks as though they've thrown every bit of GUI common practice and standardization out of the window.

This is how improvements to user interfaces can be brought about. In theory, Microsoft had a good GUI with Word. In practice, it was a complicated, bloated piece of shit that was a nightmare to try to use, especially if there were more then one user using it.

It appears that Microsoft has taken the complaints of users (well, complaints I've had for quite some time anyway) and worked on a new GUI that addresses these concerns. There's no reason the GUI should look the same it did back in Word95.

One of my big problems is that the toolbar is too complex. There are too many submenu's, trying to customize it so it displays relevant things (and keeping it's settings which was always buggy) was always a chore. The whole "let's hide most of the menu in the drop-down menu" thing was annoying. Now with it being in the toolbar represented via graphics, with a very small amount of parent menus, I'll be able to find what I want much more easily. This is a good thing(TM).

Is it different? Sure. Will some people be confused? Definitely. Is the difference a great enough improvement to deal with the confusion? IMO, most definitely.

Now if only they'd do something about those damn Virus-writer (sorry, "Macros") and make it less bloated and buggy.

(1) I never went to a Blue Cheer concert, even though they were billed as the world's loudest band.

I thought they took the GDI and USER subsystems out of Ring 3 and put it into the Ring 0 code in NT4.