Better that a union for us ....
on
GEEK Unions?
·
· Score: 1
Geeks of the world would be much better served by a professional association, a la the American Medical Association or the Bar. That can provide the type of political lobbying and public awareness education that the poster wants, without the other things like wage scales that would be a solid negative on today's job market.
Just think about the AMA. Something like 50% of all American physicians are members. They weigh in with an opinion on any piece of medical legislation all the way from the US Congress to community council meetings. And they are heeded, not just because the throw a lot of money around during election time (they certainly do) but also because they are recognized as experts on in a very complex and important field. This also gives them entre into the pressrooms of America - they provide an authoritative source of opinion whenever a new wonder drug is announced or a new plague is discovered.
The professional associations have used their power in the USA for decades to improve the careers of the people they represent. If you have any friends in law school, ask them how many texts they use that are not approved by the Bar Association. Manufacturers of hospital equipment fall over themselves get the "AMA Approved" label. Wouldn't it be amazing if there was a group that could keep the Microsoft-sponsored textbooks and lesson-plans out of schools? Or that held hardware and software manufactures to standards of stability and security?
And, finally, when the current job market does turn sour for geeks (nothing lasts forever, you know) an established professional association could become a platform for unionizing. Who would have thought even 2 years ago that DOCTORS would ever want to have a union? But now that doctors are controlled by insurance companies and HMO's the AMA is forming a collective bargaining unit to preserve the quality of their careers.
Information Technology is not like dockworking or auto manufacture, or even clerical/secretarial work. Unions, which work well for these professions, would not be appropriate for geeks. IT is much more like law, medicine, or business - highly educated individuals who can pilot their own professional destinies. If geeks truely need an organization to represent them, then it should be modeled after the professional organizations that represent these individuals.
Is it just me or have we seen this same story on Slashdot before? It seems to me that this was posted just a few weeks ago . . . oh yeah! By CmdrTaco on 3/12 (back then it was just 4 divisions -- my, how times have changed). Despite the many knee-jerk reactions that this (and every) Microsoft story produces trupmeting the incipient end of the Windows Age, this isn't new news -- Ballmer was basically assigned the job of restructuring Microsoft almost a year ago, and he announced a working plan then which was essentially the blueprint for the new structure.
This isn't even a marketing ploy, as some have suggested, nor is it a desperate attempt to appease the DoJ or shareholders. It is, actually, a sign that Microsoft is actually aware that, as as many serious market analysts and Anonymous Cowards have stated, they are becoming more hidebound and reactive, and that the pace of software innovation has slowed.
The old corporate structure was implemented when MS was riding high on the newly released Windows 95, NT 4.0, and Office 95 (there has been one small restructuring since then, but the basic framework remained intact). Technological innovation in Redmond was proceding apace (most Slashdotters might not like that principle or quality of that innovation, but no one can deny that it was profitable!). The company organized itself to be very market centered, to encourage adoption of their products versus WfW, Macintosh, Netware, Lotus, and (to a smaller extent) Unix. The mantra was "standardize on 32-bit Windows software! Everything is better and it works together!" Legions of MCSEs and MCSDs were dispatched to make this come true, little dollar signs dangling in front of their faces like carrots. And, for a while, it was basically true -- running Office on 95 with an NT server was better, or at least cooler, than running Word Perfect and 1-2-3 on DOS/WfW with Netware 3.12.
Since then, however, innovation from MS has slowed to a halt. The last major product to be released was IE 4.0. Office 97 had some impressive improvements versus 95, but Office 2000 will be bascially the same as the last release with some internet features and customizable toolbars. Windows 98 is indistinguishable from 95 with IE. And NT 5, which was supposed to be done A WHOLE YEAR AGO is so deep in the design stage that people are still debating which kernel the consumer version will be using! Meanwhile Novell is going gangbusters with NDS, Corel and Lotus are gaining market share versus Office, and there's that "little free operating system that could" making major inroads, annoyingly even in the once-pure NT offices.
This reorganization is a maneuver to help kick-start productivity and bring Win32 to the next level. An increasing number of users and managers (and Slashdot posters) have begun to write-off products from Redmond as hopelessly mired in their own success -- concluding that Microsoft has coded itself into a corner and will not be able make the leap of perfomance and stablilty that enterprise systems of the future will require without breaking everything that they have done in the past. That may be true, in which case this truely does mark the beginning of the end for Bill and Co. But don't count the richest software company in the world out just yet; they cetainly have the capital, and this move proves that they have the will, to make every attempt to maintain their hegemony.
Intel isn't trying to reserve the Slot X market for PII's, it is just that that dinky little card that the celeron is currently built on raises the price, both for Intel to manufacture and for the big OEMs to integrate (it's harder to build a robot to plug the card in, make it firm, etc. than to just plug a PGA chip in to a socket). The socket makes it easeier for OEMs to make computers with 1 giant board that has all the components integrated on it (ick) -- somethinng that is very popular with P5-class machines.
BTW, the LX and BX chipsets were always designed to run Celerons as well as PIIs. The EX chipset (the one the poster was trying to think of) was designed to be a very low-cost, Celeron-only platform (it leaves out SMP, half the DIMM sockets, and some of the PCI and ISA slots), but I think Intel was the only company to make a motherboard with it (a crappy little thing, but you could buy them in bulk for about $40 each).
Same thing; AMD liscensed the technology from DEC/Compaq when Intel wouldn't let them use Slot 1. Guess AMD just didn't want to use the "Alpha" name in their product.
Screw Intel? No thanks. Down with AMD.
on
New Intel Celerons
·
· Score: 1
NO.
The K6-3 has onCHIP L2 cache, turning your motherboard's cache into L3 -- this will give it very good performace, especially when multi-tasking several different apps. And even if the K6-3 is within spitting distance of the PII in performance benchmarks, the introductory price will be around $100 less than the comperable Intel chip (unless Intel drops their prices again, which wouldn't make me cry at all:)
As far as the K7 goes, bashing vaporware is about as productive as praising vaporware. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that it is targeted at the high-end server/workstation market. And as far as buying new supporting hardware goes, Intel mastered that trick when they pushed ATX and DIMMS on us all. I know this much: I will be looking at buying a new web server in about 10 months, and I will definetly be looking at a K7 with 8 MB of cache!
Slashdot Mirror
Geeks of the world would be much better served by a professional association, a la the American Medical Association or the Bar. That can provide the type of political lobbying and public awareness education that the poster wants, without the other things like wage scales that would be a solid negative on today's job market.
Just think about the AMA. Something like 50% of all American physicians are members. They weigh in with an opinion on any piece of medical legislation all the way from the US Congress to community council meetings. And they are heeded, not just because the throw a lot of money around during election time (they certainly do) but also because they are recognized as experts on in a very complex and important field. This also gives them entre into the pressrooms of America - they provide an authoritative source of opinion whenever a new wonder drug is announced or a new plague is discovered.
The professional associations have used their power in the USA for decades to improve the careers of the people they represent. If you have any friends in law school, ask them how many texts they use that are not approved by the Bar Association. Manufacturers of hospital equipment fall over themselves get the "AMA Approved" label. Wouldn't it be amazing if there was a group that could keep the Microsoft-sponsored textbooks and lesson-plans out of schools? Or that held hardware and software manufactures to standards of stability and security?
And, finally, when the current job market does turn sour for geeks (nothing lasts forever, you know) an established professional association could become a platform for unionizing. Who would have thought even 2 years ago that DOCTORS would ever want to have a union? But now that doctors are controlled by insurance companies and HMO's the AMA is forming a collective bargaining unit to preserve the quality of their careers.
Information Technology is not like dockworking or auto manufacture, or even clerical/secretarial work. Unions, which work well for these professions, would not be appropriate for geeks. IT is much more like law, medicine, or business - highly educated individuals who can pilot their own professional destinies. If geeks truely need an organization to represent them, then it should be modeled after the professional organizations that represent these individuals.
Is it just me or have we seen this same story on Slashdot before? It seems to me that this was posted just a few weeks ago . . . oh yeah! By CmdrTaco on 3/12 (back then it was just 4 divisions -- my, how times have changed). Despite the many knee-jerk reactions that this (and every) Microsoft story produces trupmeting the incipient end of the Windows Age, this isn't new news -- Ballmer was basically assigned the job of restructuring Microsoft almost a year ago, and he announced a working plan then which was essentially the blueprint for the new structure.
This isn't even a marketing ploy, as some have suggested, nor is it a desperate attempt to appease the DoJ or shareholders. It is, actually, a sign that Microsoft is actually aware that, as as many serious market analysts and Anonymous Cowards have stated, they are becoming more hidebound and reactive, and that the pace of software innovation has slowed.
The old corporate structure was implemented when MS was riding high on the newly released Windows 95, NT 4.0, and Office 95 (there has been one small restructuring since then, but the basic framework remained intact). Technological innovation in Redmond was proceding apace (most Slashdotters might not like that principle or quality of that innovation, but no one can deny that it was profitable!). The company organized itself to be very market centered, to encourage adoption of their products versus WfW, Macintosh, Netware, Lotus, and (to a smaller extent) Unix. The mantra was "standardize on 32-bit Windows software! Everything is better and it works together!" Legions of MCSEs and MCSDs were dispatched to make this come true, little dollar signs dangling in front of their faces like carrots. And, for a while, it was basically true -- running Office on 95 with an NT server was better, or at least cooler, than running Word Perfect and 1-2-3 on DOS/WfW with Netware 3.12.
Since then, however, innovation from MS has slowed to a halt. The last major product to be released was IE 4.0. Office 97 had some impressive improvements versus 95, but Office 2000 will be bascially the same as the last release with some internet features and customizable toolbars. Windows 98 is indistinguishable from 95 with IE. And NT 5, which was supposed to be done A WHOLE YEAR AGO is so deep in the design stage that people are still debating which kernel the consumer version will be using! Meanwhile Novell is going gangbusters with NDS, Corel and Lotus are gaining market share versus Office, and there's that "little free operating system that could" making major inroads, annoyingly even in the once-pure NT offices.
This reorganization is a maneuver to help kick-start productivity and bring Win32 to the next level. An increasing number of users and managers (and Slashdot posters) have begun to write-off products from Redmond as hopelessly mired in their own success -- concluding that Microsoft has coded itself into a corner and will not be able make the leap of perfomance and stablilty that enterprise systems of the future will require without breaking everything that they have done in the past. That may be true, in which case this truely does mark the beginning of the end for Bill and Co. But don't count the richest software company in the world out just yet; they cetainly have the capital, and this move proves that they have the will, to make every attempt to maintain their hegemony.
Zoopomorphize (pronounced zoh-oh-pomorphize).
/. posters.
That covers all animalae.
I suppose you could say avepomorphize, and just go to the birds.
And I for one am shocked (SHOCKED, I SAY!) at the appalling lack of knowledge concerning classical languages evidenced by
Carpe Aptenodytes (sieze the penguins)!
Intel isn't trying to reserve the Slot X market for PII's, it is just that that dinky little card that the celeron is currently built on raises the price, both for Intel to manufacture and for the big OEMs to integrate (it's harder to build a robot to plug the card in, make it firm, etc. than to just plug a PGA chip in to a socket). The socket makes it easeier for OEMs to make computers with 1 giant board that has all the components integrated on it (ick) -- somethinng that is very popular with P5-class machines.
BTW, the LX and BX chipsets were always designed to run Celerons as well as PIIs. The EX chipset (the one the poster was trying to think of) was designed to be a very low-cost, Celeron-only platform (it leaves out SMP, half the DIMM sockets, and some of the PCI and ISA slots), but I think Intel was the only company to make a motherboard with it (a crappy little thing, but you could buy them in bulk for about $40 each).
Same thing; AMD liscensed the technology from DEC/Compaq when Intel wouldn't let them use Slot 1. Guess AMD just didn't want to use the "Alpha" name in their product.
NO.
The K6-3 has onCHIP L2 cache, turning your motherboard's cache into L3 -- this will give it very good performace, especially when multi-tasking several different apps. And even if the K6-3 is within spitting distance of the PII in performance benchmarks, the introductory price will be around $100 less than the comperable Intel chip (unless Intel drops their prices again, which wouldn't make me cry at all:)
As far as the K7 goes, bashing vaporware is about as productive as praising vaporware. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that it is targeted at the high-end server/workstation market. And as far as buying new supporting hardware goes, Intel mastered that trick when they pushed ATX and DIMMS on us all. I know this much: I will be looking at buying a new web server in about 10 months, and I will definetly be looking at a K7 with 8 MB of cache!