With Java 2 5 1.5 they turned it into a crappy language. Almost all the features they added are badly designed, especially generics.
Quite the opposite, in my opinion. They finally fixed all the stupid stuff.
If you say that type-unsafe containers, no enums and no normal library for various threading feature was somehow a better state of affairs, then you do not know what you are talking about.
I guess that is the reason so many people cry for BinXML standard, and W3C finally have heard them and started the process of defying it.
You do not care about how you text files are organized on a physical disk, do you? You got some quite simple APIs and you do not care about journal entires, in memory paging, segment size, build in compression and wire protocols that get you precious text file to your app. BinXML will be entirely equivalent to an XML doc, once out of some API, and any other "binary" format may be.
You are quite narrow-minded it seems for such a loud mouth.
If the conversion and validation algorithm are streaming (if) (that is you do not have to instantiate some huge DOM), file size on disk will be the limiting factor for loading, and ZIP does a rather good job with XML.
As for photos - it is irrelevant in what they are embedded.
A well-designed binary format makes much more sense than XML
Recent W3C BinXML activity may have something to do with that, but I doubt it. It is rather darn hard to beat ZIP, and speed up is irrelevant for Office usecase, as it is throttled by disk access anyway.
Hardware guys blame the software, software guys blame the software
Well, I would admit there is an advantage for having a single vendor for both. No need to cut through crap, that does indeed happen (though in this case - I do not really buy it. The author is greatly exaggerating in my opinion. In my department, nobody of about 100 users required any attention to there Win XP and 2003 on laptops and desktops inthe last 2 years. Anekdotal evidence, but anyway.)
BUt history of integrated vendors, like IBM, have shown that is not what mass market wants, and I can see a darn good reason for that. Flexibility and standartization (no black box solutions) has a cost, but a lot more of benefits.
In the case of an enterprise, if you want a one shop support solution, plenty of IT outsourcing companies do offer that at a very high level. That what I meant under "find another vendor", not Dell or Sony. (I think in my current company it is handled by Accenture - good experience so far)
So then why do SO MANY people still have SO MANY problems?
Because SO MANY people are using it. If Mac OS had 95% market share that included low cost crap hardware segment, (that Apple just does not cover, but that has to be covered as not everybody has even $500 for a Mac) it would have a similar share of issues. Current Windows is as reliable and secure as Mac OS X. Older ones were crap, but so was old Mac OS, and older Linux distros for that matter.
Now compare that to PCs where the first suggestion is often "you need to reinstall Windows".
I have never heard that suggested to me or to any of my colleagues.
As I said - find a better vendor.
And do you remember sweet times before OS X? Freezing Macs.. Oh, joy. People often bring up Windows experience from the times of Win98 (definition of crap) and compare it to a modern OS. Bollocks.
Any complex and widely used hardware platform/OS will have it issues. There is absolutely no magic to Linux or Mac OS/Mac hardware in this regard. Current Windows is just as functional and reliable. (Now for the price and the evils of a monopoly, and for personal preference - that's is a completely different issue.)
You want to say that you do not need to apply patches or run a build in firewall or just perform common sense TLC on Mac or with Linux? Or that Mac hardware is always more stable then top tier PC platform? I call bullshit and good luck to you.
If you imply that actual hardware support for Mac is somehow better, I would claim that you are wrong. Mac are on par with top PC platform vendors for support quality.
That's the point actually. Any complex and widely used hardware platform/OS will have it issues. There is absolutely no magic to Linux or Mac OS/Mac hardware in this regard. Current Windows is just as functional and reliable. (Now for the price and the evils of a monopoly, and for personal preference - that's is a completely different issue.)
I never said Windows always was reasonable, but then watch Mac users not even remember there was life before OS X. Remember that piece of crap that OS 9 was? Remember that piece of crap Red Hat 5.0 was?
Personally I think everything before 2003 server and XP professional (not home) was utter crap. I was mostly using Linux then. But NT and later are not really "full of holes". They just offered you more rope to hang yourself (running remote content) but historically they were no worse the Linux or BSD as far as remote and root exploits go. Now they just changed default settings.
The only thing you indeed need that is specific for Windows is the ability to deny running remote content. Well, they indeed had an issue with their default permissions, and that is now corrected. I do not have ot go down closing all holes down anymore.
You do not have to have excuses for running ANY system at home.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Reportedly, Google did just that and they are doing fine, it seems.
Depends on what you.
Quite the opposite, in my opinion. They finally fixed all the stupid stuff.
If you say that type-unsafe containers, no enums and no normal library for various threading feature was somehow a better state of affairs, then you do not know what you are talking about.
And thing like mail search and picture browsing are already solved.
Dell's 24" WUXGA 1900x1200 panel is about $1.1K, but it is 24".
And sorry to burst you bubble, but you TV is 1280 x768, which proves my point. It is NOT a full 1080i. It just accepts a signal.
Maybe. But having a PC is a must, while console is optional.
I just can not find a compelling reason to add a console, while there are enough games on PC, and I already have 3 of them to work with.
Eh.. You already got your PS3? Or XBox 360?
Newsflash - the stuff they talk about is YEAR OR TWO away.
Let's see you console do full 1080i on a $100 TV.
Even $5K TV will only give you 1380x780 or something.
Seen as a package High Def TV + console vs PC , PC is cheaper even with a $400 card.
And you STILL need to get a PC at home, even after you paid for a console and its overpriced games.
Oh, I doubt it. Compare number of charachters in a simple Word file with the file size. Looks like metadata dwarfs it.
I think the key to speed is whether all operations are streamable, and indeed - it is about logical organization rather then markup particulars.
That reminds me that it would not be enough to shell out $400 for a PS3 to get the quality.
You will need to shell out another $2K - $8K for a high definition TV (that still will be like 1300x800) if you do not have one.
And you will be tied to a 3-ton TV installation.
Except that is not true with a validating parser.
I guess that is the reason so many people cry for BinXML standard, and W3C finally have heard them and started the process of defying it.
You do not care about how you text files are organized on a physical disk, do you? You got some quite simple APIs and you do not care about journal entires, in memory paging, segment size, build in compression and wire protocols that get you precious text file to your app. BinXML will be entirely equivalent to an XML doc, once out of some API, and any other "binary" format may be.
You are quite narrow-minded it seems for such a loud mouth.
That is absolutely incorrect. If you have the document schema you know exactly what to expect, and how to validate it.
Funny how you contrast XML with SGML in this regard. I guess you do not know much about W3C recommendations.
If the conversion and validation algorithm are streaming (if) (that is you do not have to instantiate some huge DOM), file size on disk will be the limiting factor for loading, and ZIP does a rather good job with XML.
As for photos - it is irrelevant in what they are embedded.
Recent W3C BinXML activity may have something to do with that, but I doubt it. It is rather darn hard to beat ZIP, and speed up is irrelevant for Office usecase, as it is throttled by disk access anyway.
From the relationship management - not related at all. I am speaking about the end result for the group I manage and the department in general.
I would not be surprised if there are severe problems with them, but I have not heard any. They are not the only shop out there in any case.
...Apple does not disclose, discuss or confirm security issues...
Well, I would admit there is an advantage for having a single vendor for both. No need to cut through crap, that does indeed happen (though in this case - I do not really buy it. The author is greatly exaggerating in my opinion. In my department, nobody of about 100 users required any attention to there Win XP and 2003 on laptops and desktops inthe last 2 years. Anekdotal evidence, but anyway.)
BUt history of integrated vendors, like IBM, have shown that is not what mass market wants, and I can see a darn good reason for that. Flexibility and standartization (no black box solutions) has a cost, but a lot more of benefits.
In the case of an enterprise, if you want a one shop support solution, plenty of IT outsourcing companies do offer that at a very high level. That what I meant under "find another vendor", not Dell or Sony. (I think in my current company it is handled by Accenture - good experience so far)
So then why do SO MANY people still have SO MANY problems?
Because SO MANY people are using it. If Mac OS had 95% market share that included low cost crap hardware segment, (that Apple just does not cover, but that has to be covered as not everybody has even $500 for a Mac) it would have a similar share of issues. Current Windows is as reliable and secure as Mac OS X. Older ones were crap, but so was old Mac OS, and older Linux distros for that matter.
I have never heard that suggested to me or to any of my colleagues.
As I said - find a better vendor.
And do you remember sweet times before OS X? Freezing Macs.. Oh, joy. People often bring up Windows experience from the times of Win98 (definition of crap) and compare it to a modern OS. Bollocks.
You want to say that you do not need to apply patches or run a build in firewall or just perform common sense TLC on Mac or with Linux? Or that Mac hardware is always more stable then top tier PC platform? I call bullshit and good luck to you.
That's the point actually. Any complex and widely used hardware platform/OS will have it issues. There is absolutely no magic to Linux or Mac OS/Mac hardware in this regard. Current Windows is just as functional and reliable. (Now for the price and the evils of a monopoly, and for personal preference - that's is a completely different issue.)
Personally I think everything before 2003 server and XP professional (not home) was utter crap. I was mostly using Linux then. But NT and later are not really "full of holes". They just offered you more rope to hang yourself (running remote content) but historically they were no worse the Linux or BSD as far as remote and root exploits go. Now they just changed default settings.
The only thing you indeed need that is specific for Windows is the ability to deny running remote content. Well, they indeed had an issue with their default permissions, and that is now corrected. I do not have ot go down closing all holes down anymore.
You do not have to have excuses for running ANY system at home. :)