Slashdot Mirror
Gaikai Drawing Interest With Low-Key Demo, Believable Claims
Earlier this week, we discussed news that games industry veteran Dave Perry had posted a demo of his upcoming cloud gaming service Gaikai. Now that people have had time to speak with Perry and evaluate the demo, reaction has been surprisingly positive. Quoting Eurogamer: "What struck me about the presentation was that there was absolutely nothing unbelievable in it whatsoever. There were no claims of streaming 720p gameplay at 60 frames per second — games were running in differently sized windows according to how difficult they were to compress, and video itself runs at the internet standard 30FPS. There was no talk of world-beating compression systems that annihilate the work of the best minds in video encoding today, the demo was using the exact same h264 codec that we use ... And finally, there was nothing here to suggest that we were looking at a technological breakthrough that would make our PS3s and Xbox 360s obsolete... just that this was a brand new way to play games in an ultra-accessible manner." By contrast, OnLive was received with much more criticism, in part due to their dramatic promises. While playing online games with Gaikai will naturally add some amount of latency, the article points out that single-player games need not lag more than you'd expect from a console controller. Meanwhile, unlike OnLive, Gaikai is not trying to compete directly with the major console manufacturers, instead trying to work with them in order to deliver their first-party games to new audiences.
Sell out?
Who'd buy these guys, a gaming company or a streaming media company?
Stop giving it press.
Gaming is already ultra-accessible, this is the solution to a problem that, for consumers, doesn't exist. The only people this will benefit is the game companies.
I will not rent my game software.
Um... yes? "How many Nintendo games are going to appear on OnLive? The answer is none," Perry adds. "And some of the best games in the world are from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft... I'm already talking to Nintendo. I'm talking to all the major publishers.
So in the end this service is going to end up as nothing more than PC games? Its not a good sign when a company who makes most of the classic games that people remember rejects your ideas, and I'm not sure Sony or MS wants to jump on the bandwagon (though it wouldn't surprise me if MS bought the company if they managed to turn out a decent product).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I mean, huh? So what's next, cloud fucking?
How exactly are they reducing the latency from the controller to the cloud? Let alone the roundtrip latency of the video/sound.
Anything more than 100ms ping time is gunna kill this thing.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wow, I guess I'm the only one excited by this technology. I really don't see any downsides. I think you guys are just being whiners, as seems to be the usual around here.
I'd see the biggest benefit of something like this is NO CHEATING, which is the bane of most PC games, FPS types especially. It's pretty hard to be running a wall hack on your client if you only get sent an already rendered image from a central server!
Think of this...
You're at home, you log onto Gaikai, and see a PS2 RPG you always wanted to play. Awesome! So you start playing it on the PC. The next day, you have to fly out somewhere (business trip, home for the holidays), and while you're at the airport, you use your iPhone and continue playing your game. No need to copy your emulator files over, deal with incompatibilities, buggy software (there isn't even a ps2 emu for iPhone and I doubt its powerful enough). While on your trip, you decide to retire for the night. You bring up your laptop, and can once again resume your PS2 RPG.
I think this will open a whole new market for gaming to people who either never own consoles or people that do own consoles, and want to play last generation titles that they missed out on and no longer own the older system or don't; have it hooked up anymore (especially now that Sony took out PS2 backwards compatibility)
I hear what you are saying, but there is a chicken and egg problem here. All of these games run on emulators of last gen systems. I could see how a service *like* this could kill consoles, but not *this* service. The way this service works, there needs to be games and a system for which the games came out on. What do you want the developers to program their games for if this kills the consoles and no new consoles come out? PC (will we come full circle)? The console makers have to make the consoles, in which the developers then create games based around (using the hardware and software dev kits from Sony, MS, and Nintendo). That defines how the games will come out.
These guys are one step down the food chain and simply take the games that already came out for the consoles, and put them online. I don't see how anyone would object to this. It's very easy for Nintendo, or Sony. to only release certain titles on this network as to not interfere with their profit model.
I've gone back to student life, and have a Core2Duo laptop with Integrated Intel graphics, and an internet connection that speed tests to 86,468kbps @ 0ms ping. I'd be happy to pay a small sum for this.
I'd love to have this available for personal implementation. Granted - I'm thinking of very niche use. But I've attempted similar things with VNC and WoW in the past - with painful results. I'm not expecting to take my remote display in to a raid or battleground. But it'd be nice to be able to do auction house tasks, crafting, mailbox, banks, etc. wherever I happen to be at the time; reasonably quick tasks where a little latency isn't an issue.
Of course - it looks like their intent goes well beyond this.
Imagine being at a friend's and being able to stream your own games in this method. That would be the best of both worlds, you have the killer rig at home for the latest and greatest, and you can stream your games while on the go.
This may be the future of gaming, eventually supplanting console and PC gaming.
Reasons :
1. This is a DRM system that would be nearly impossible to beat. As long as the game code is only given to these hosts, it would be vastly more difficult to pirate games. Not impossible - workers at the hosting company could leak the game to the internet, but it would be much more difficult.
Strong DRM means the publishers would get paid for every game they sell, yet they could easily offer fully functional 'demos' of the game, or sell time for a game. It might be easier for a lesser known publisher to sell 10 hours of a game for $10 than the entire game for $50.
2. It removes the need for the users to buy expensive hardware, whether that be a console or a high end gaming PC. You instead just lease time on the big iron. More advanced games with more advanced graphics would become available much sooner, since publishers wouldn't have to wait for the next generation of console to become common with consumers, or for PC owners to finally get upgrade their graphics cards. A publisher could offer games with state of the art, photo realistic graphics much sooner : it would just cost more per hour to play a game like that.
3. It solves the nightmare of hardware incompatibility and hardware failures. Since your netbook/living room console/old PC would merely be decoding video, there would be far fewer ways things could go wrong.
Problems : using flash is not a long term solution, flash has many problems : later generations of this service will need their own, optimized decoder code. ISPs will have to work with the companies offering hosted games, and configure their networks to deliver the ultra low latency, guaranteed bandwidth needed for a gaming session to actually work.
I think this idea is going to take off. It'll be a few years before ISPs really get their act together to support this kind of service, but it will gradually happen, and I think it will completely supplant the game console.
A big part of my job for the last ten years has been running game servers for PC-based video games (Counter-Strike, Battlefield, etc - your standard dedicated-server based games, mostly FPS).
Over the years as games have become more complicated, the trend has been for these games to consume more and more CPU. They support more players, they're doing complicated collision detection and physics and tracking stats and doing all sorts of other things. CPU usage and memory usage just goes up and up and up.
Say we can fit several hundred people (depending on the game type) on one, physical game server, spread out over several software servers running on it (usually just Windows applications). This isn't a huge amount - we have a /lot/ of physical servers, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear. We're just one of many game providers in Australia (population roughly 20 million). It is a massive investment to provide this many game servers.
Now, think about this from the perspective of doing all that crunching for the client side. We're not doing ANY of the rendering, or client side physics, or handling of input. When I start thinking about how to support that many game clients - the whole end-to-end experience - on normal hardware, I just can't figure out how many servers we'd need. We buy high-density blade servers - just asked our Ops guys, and apparently they do have expansion slots in which you could put a video card, but they're small slots so you couldn't put in, for example, a quad-SLI thing to try and crunch lots of video at once, or something.
So yeh, I'm super-curious to know how they plan to scale this sort of technology. I am interested in it from the perspective of reducing the impact of cheating in online games, but it also just sounds cool. I played with the OnLive stuff at GDC really briefly this year and it looked sort of cool, but I had the same questions (...which noone on the floor could, or would, answer).
I hate these silly game streaming ideas. Its too limiting. I would rather own my games and play them on my own hardware.
Its just a form of DRM. I would rather own POWERFUL computer hardware and the software I run on it.
Reading the comments already posted, I understand that some persons think that the service will be used to play games in whole (i.e. replace completly your PC or your console)... But if they'd RTFA, these persons would understand that Gaikai is mainly intented to demo games before getting them (now IMHO, that's a promising idea).
When are people going to start realizing that the "cloud" is an old idea with new hardware, and that reinventing a concept by putting it on the 'new' cloud platform isn't a business model that stands on its own?
Software developers have optimized their multiplayer games to only transfer the necessary information, and leaving the less important stuff to the rest of the clients. Thats why up to 5 people can play FPS online games at the same time without problems at my house (only 700KBit up/2.5MBit down DSL). With this technology that would be reduced 1 or at most 2 (estimate based on my experience with streaming movies). Who will pay the server that creates content in high quality based on complex calculations and on information of other clients AND compresses it good enough to go through my pipe without losing to much quality, in real time?
This whole system imho sounds like the regularly repeated idea, that a huge solar collector plattform placed in the dessert of North Africa could produce enough electricity for the whole world. Of course, it can. But no one lives in the dessert to use that power and transporting the power to where its needed is hard or impossible.
While that would rule out FPS, fighting, platformers and so on, strategy, puzzle and the like should work fine. This certianly doesn't look to be a be-all, end-all solution, but it could have applications. You'd get a slightly laggy feel from the UI but that isn't a show stopper.
They claim: We are not using any out-of-the-box virtualization, it's all custom built by our team for this purpose., or and similarly that its their own custom operating system (specifically so that the photoshop demo is a single window)
The company was formed in November 2008.
So, seriously: nothing unbelievable about that? I'd be wondering whose software they are really using there, because the development timescale doesn't add up. If they'd said nothing or said it was off-the-shelf tech that would be a bit more likely.
See subject-line above, & this data, _Sprocket_, you troll
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY, which Sprocket your fellow troll REFUSES to define that term for us in this thread as well, vs. what is quoted below in regards to "PERFECTLY") here:
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
FROM -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271
----
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org]
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
So please, _Sprocket_:
Would you define the terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY please?
(They BOTH equate to 99.999% uptime... period!)
APK
P.S.=> Why did you refuse to define the word "PERFECT" or "PERFECTLY" over in that thread -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28584687 , _Sprocket_? Hmmm?? Maybe because you shot your loud mouth off spouting words you now have to eat? You ran like the troll you are, & it served you right... nicest part is? I do get that "last laugh", on YOU
See subject-line above, which simply proves _Sprocket_'s trolling got his behind "PERFECTLY kicked" (& now, as you see? He has nothing better to say, than this evasive b.s. (as is per his usual - avoiding answering questions his big mouth wrote a check for which his know-how cannot ca$h)):
"Pay close attention to what he links and what he THINKS they are saying. It's worth a chuckle if you enjoy watching a Microsoft fanboy kook in his natural habitat." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday July 06, @01:44PM (#28596879)
Please do, all reading: See how "_SpRoCkEt_" the big mouthed troll REFUSES to define the word PERFECTLY or PERFECT, and how he has had to RUN from there (but, for all his hassling me on the SEMANTICS of WORDS, which was all this troll sprocket had, he ran, lmao).
"Awesome. Everyone should follow that above link to see how the apk troll (see below) operates." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday July 06, @01:44PM (#28596879)
That's all I have been asking of folks really... & you are a fool, because they're going to see what I posted to you here, and see that you put words in my mouth also (stating I was saying NASDAQ ran it ALL (quote trading data) on MDDS, & I never said such things... you IMPLIED, & INSINUATED I did, and had to "eat your words" troll, lol... as well as about uptime 99.999% also, & I am going to post THAT MUCH HERE, once more as well):
SPROCKET define PERFECTLY & AVAILABILITY, won't you? Why do you avoid that simple set of questions??
(LOL, I know why... _Sprocket? shot his big mouth off saying NASDAQ's MDDS was not doing 99.999% uptime, & when HE was asked to prove that? He admitted he COULD NOT!)
Also?
See subject-line above, & this data:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org]
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availabil
" Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday July 06, @01:39PM (#28596821)
LMAO, what an ABSOLUTE bullshitter you are, utterly hilarious!
Man - talk about the "pot calling the kettle black", well, then I will get the definitions from the dictionary & wikipedia for the word PERFECTLY & also AVAILABILITY, & post them here below, to make you once more, "Eat your WORDS", troll... here goes:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:
ON THAT NOTE?
"It doesn't mean what you think it means" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday July 06, @01:39PM (#28596821)
LOL, well, "yea, ok" (Sarcasm)
Why don't we see what wikipedia says, then:
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
FROM -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271
As far as the word "PERFECT"?
"It doesn't mean
About twenty years ago, a friend of mine excitedly told me about a project to send movies over standard phone lines. The "inventor" was looking for investors, since he'd "solved" the problem . . . these were to be full quality movies. Note that 56k modems weren't available yet . . .
I explained to him that that person couldn't possibly be doing what he was doing, given the theoretical limits based upon the way the US phone system worked, but he insisted.
Several months later, I saw the news article on the arrest of someone in that city for a scam to get people to invest in a phony movies over telephone line.
Today, sure, but at the time, a 14.4k was still "fast" and expensive . . .
hawk
"It's worth a chuckle if you enjoy watching a Microsoft fanboy kook in his natural habitat." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Tuesday July 07, @04:15AM (#28605039)
Name tossing now... yes, the very THIN veneer of "Sprocket's cool" is fading... torn apart, by facts he cannot overcome (such as the definition of the word PERFECT and the fact that Ken Richmond of NASDAQ stated that is EXACTLY how MDDS, which is composed of SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 are performing @ NASDAQ, verbatim, and that it yielded a solution that gave NASDAQ "Enterprise Availability")...
LOL, "TOO EASY"...
As far as network admins vs. programmers?
No it is the truth - plain & simple: Network Admins use tools that coders create, but very few of them actually do any coding (and batch files, or even shell scripts (albeit here to a lesser extent), are NOT full blown programming @ all, anymore than webpage design is in HTML - simply because they are NOT as difficult as full-blown coding (care to show me batch files that do pointers, for example?)
It is, just how it is, & I know: I hold or have held BOTH titles over 16++ yrs. now professionally, in addition to myself being multiply internationally published for my works 10x or so in the science of computing (how about you troll)?
There is a big difference between the two titles in terms of skills & know-how - & the logic to determine THAT much is simple: One (network admins/techs) only USE the tools the other (coders) create for them to USE... & therein, lies the difference, period.
APK
P.S.=> For everyone's reference who is reading: THIS BELOW is what got "SpRoCkEt" the troll all "rattled in his game", & produced his "frothing @ the mouth" name calling he did here (calling me a 'microsoft kook' etc. et al) & his "ongoing evasions" of the questions & proofs I put into this reply, pasted here again for your reference (& of course, his further embarassment):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219 [linkedin.com]
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which i
Sprocket, 5 small questions (& please, no wall of text w/out documented backing @ least - quit evading answering them, especially the 1st one, & then we can refer to what is @ the bottom of my "p.s." below, vs. your evasive walls of text):
----
1.) DEFINE THE WORD PERFECT or PERFECTLY (which is what Mr. Ken Richmond, VP of market data systems @ NASDAQ said MDDS performs like, verbatim quoted below & that it provides "Enterprise Availability")
2.) CAN YOU PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT SEEING 99.999% UPTIME ON MDDS (their OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (which is what I said from the get go, not anything else, though you attempted to IMPLY that I did, & yet you had to admit I did NOT say that here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28583581, lol)
3.) Did I ever once say that MDDS is the quote system @ NASDAQ? If so, SHOW US ALL, where I did... (you already admitted I did not, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28574671 so that "argument" of yours (straw man type b.s.) fails on that alone - failure to provide PROOF, which is also what you also fail to provide to prove that MDDS does not give 99.999% uptime for NASDAQ, lmao! Sprocket? Putting words in others' mouths they never said is NOT good debate, it always FAILS, as you have, because you do that)
4.) Does any other program @ NASDAQ do what MDDS (composed of SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003) does, inclusive of the TIBCO + custom programmed trading floor quote system?
5.) Did you have to ADMIT that SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 can provide 99.999% uptime? Sure you did, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28582575 especially after the XEROX example, which does many orders of magnitude more transactions PER DAY than NASDAQ's MDDS even (& that alone says NASDAQ is pulling that easily enough, alongside the QUOTED testimonials of Ken Richmond of NASDAQ below (which is what I always provide, quoted verbatim testimonials, & all YOU have? Is what your "trollish delusional brain" interprets (without backing & purely opinion - don't like that? Well, show us PROOF that NASDAQ's MDDS is not doing 99.999% uptime then, simple!)
----
You're going to love his evasions - they're classic humor! Get ready for a "wall of text" style evasion, everyone... lol!
(However, of course, our "favorite troll" will evade answering them, short & sweet style, because all he will be able to do, lmao, is put up a 'wall of text', complete with evasions of these simple questions... like usual: Trolls - they're TOO predictable, easy to manipulate with facts, & TOO easy to "push their buttons" (especially when they're proven WRONG, as Sprocket here has been))
Also, there IS the simple fact that you had to resort to name calling as well, directed MY way, here, which you "prided yourself" on NOT doing (but that THIN veneer has been cracked, TOO easily (trolls - they ALWAYS "fold under pressure" & use "pot calling the kettle black" tactics + put words into others' mouths they never said also):
----
"It's worth a chuckle if you enjoy watching a Microsoft fanboy kook in his natural habitat." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday July 06, @01:44PM (#28596879)
----
And that shows ANYONE that you are "on the ropes", troll... along with your evading answering questions in a short manner (walls of text, you said it yourself? Are MEANINGLESS -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28576591 & yet I do so with quoted backing, & you? LOL, you create these in evasive responses, utterly LA
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28610457
Sprocket, 8 small questions (& please, no wall of text w/out documented backing @ least - quit evading answering them, especially the 1st one, & then we can refer to what is @ the bottom of my "p.s." below, vs. your evasive walls of text):
----
1.) DEFINE THE WORD PERFECT or PERFECTLY, won't you? (which is what Mr. Ken Richmond, VP of market data systems @ NASDAQ said MDDS performs like, verbatim quoted below & that it provides "Enterprise Availability")
2.) CAN YOU PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT SEEING 99.999% UPTIME ON MDDS? (NASDAQ's OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (which is what I said from the get go, not anything else, though you attempted to IMPLY that I did, & yet you had to admit I did NOT say that here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28583581, lol)
3.) Did I ever once say that MDDS is the quote system @ NASDAQ? If so, SHOW US ALL, where I did... (you already admitted I did not, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28574671 so that "argument" of yours (straw man type b.s.) fails on that alone - failure to provide PROOF, which is also what you also fail to provide to prove that MDDS does not give 99.999% uptime for NASDAQ, lmao! Sprocket? Putting words in others' mouths they never said is NOT good debate, it always FAILS, as you have, because you do that)
4.) Does any other program @ NASDAQ do what MDDS does @ NASDAQ? (composed of SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003) inclusive of the TIBCO + custom programmed trading floor quote system?
5.) Did you have to ADMIT that SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 can provide 99.999% uptime? Sure you did, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28582575 especially after the XEROX example, which does many orders of magnitude more transactions PER DAY than NASDAQ's MDDS even (& that alone says NASDAQ is pulling that easily enough, alongside the QUOTED testimonials of Ken Richmond of NASDAQ below (which is what I always provide, quoted verbatim testimonials, & All YOU have? Is what your "trollish delusional brain" interprets (without backing & purely opinion - don't like that? Well, show us PROOF that NASDAQ's MDDS is not doing 99.999% uptime then, simple!)))
6.) What EXACTLY is your role in this field/science (computing), professionally, & how many years of it do you have under your belt, + how many degrees around it or certs @ the very least also?
7.) Have you EVER been published in written publications such as "trade rags" as they are often called, for work you have done?
8.) Has work you done ever been featured as a finalist @ Microsoft "tech ed" or like trade shows, & for 2 yrs. in a ROW, as a finalist in that show's hardest category?
----
You're going to love his evasions - they're classic humor! Get ready for a "wall of text" style evasion, everyone... lol!
(However, of course, our "favorite troll" will evade answering them, short & sweet style, because all he will be able to do, lmao, is put up a 'wall of text', complete with evasions of these simple questions... like usual: Trolls - they're TOO predictable, easy to manipulate with facts, & TOO easy to "push their buttons" (especially when they're proven WRONG, as Sprocket here has been))
Also, there IS the simple fact that you had to resort to name calling as well, directed MY way, here, which you "prided yourself" on NOT doing, quoted verbatim, below next (but that THIN veneer has been cracked, TOO easily (trolls - they ALWAYS "fold under pressure" & use "pot calling the kettle black" tactics + put words into others' mouths they never said also)):
----
"It's