Maybe it shouldn't matter, but in the real world it does matter a lot. It absolutely affects interview results, and it is very probably affecting promotions and raises in many jobs. If you're not in the sports or entertainment industry then best advice is to speak properly.
Well no, they died off along with other minicomputers and workstations, due to the influx of the PC monoculture. I think even the Itanium was enough for HP to deprecate it's PA-RISC line. The good-enough solution with the 800lb Intel and AMD gorillas able to keep squeezing more and more performance out of a legacy architecture and supply it at commodity prices.
Intel's plan did work. The IA-64 wasn't planned to be an x86 killer directly, though it would have been a nice bonus if it had worked. There is far more to the computing world and to Intel than the PC. The higher level IA-64 architecture was far ahead of i386, probably even Pentium, though the silicon process needed work. Even so it had a pretty good run in high end server markets.
That should be irrelevant. RISC architecture doesn't care about the decoder front end, only the x86-64 is deeply concerned with it because it's forced into backwards compatibility. Dump the requirement to support legacy systems and the decoder becomes the simplest part of the system.
I think there's a bubble effect happening with a lot of people, they can only a limited viewpoint based on seeing a monoculture for so long. Hearing these sorts of questions is sort of like heaing someone ask why Chevrolet exists when we already have Ford. They've only ever seen and used a PC perhaps and only vaguely know of other types of computers, and certainly have no background in computer architecture.
The PC drove the development of the ia-32 architecture, and the PC was a toy computer for home and office desktop markets, and it grew up in the hobbyist world. The same with the Apple proeduct line, it wasn't focused on professional computing. It wasn't until the home and hobbyist computers got beefier were able to approach the capabilities of other professional computing platforms that the need to have more sophisticated operating systems and applications arose. Intel and Motorola were not idle during those times, they did have other architectures that weren't used on small computers. Mostly it was for compatibility, no one really wanted to toss out DOS and Windows just because there was a better chip out there.
Because native support for i386 is technically a pain in the ass, though it does make business sense if you need to be in the home computer market. It was one of Intel's attempts to break free of it's own monopoly.
i386 is a legacy product with a line of design decisions for backwards compatibility that stretch all the way back to the first 4004. Surely we've managed to come up with better designs since then. i386 is unsuitable for modern high performance computing. IA-64 follows a lot of good RISC principles, like eliminating unneeded 16 and 32 bit legacy support which frees up core space for more useful features, such as more registers, parallel operations, etc.
Sure, x86-64 is fast too, but it does this through brute force and not elegance.
It's for enhanced user experience. But yes, the stupidest idea from Microsoft ever was to allow scripting in documents, and not just basic scripting but scripts with tons of control over your computer. They should just go ask a 10 year old, "would this be a good idea?" and they'd be better off.
It's Sierra, 10.12.4. I do get the message that the file was downloaded from the internet and it won't run, but you get past that by right clicking on the app and select "open". You can change a security setting also (allow from app store and identified developers) and I think IT pre-selected this as a group policy for us. So maybe I hadn't run into the issue as hard like a home user would.
I've got applications designed and sold for the Mac which do not appear in the Apple Store (and that store is full of crap, just like the Microsoft Store or any smart phone store).
So it's true, MacOS is getting worse, but it's losing the race to the bottom as Windows is still far in the lead.
It's true, OWA can work. I really hate it though, the interface is the worst for any web based email I've used. I have had cases where someone in a corporation has used the extra features of Outlook, which means you need Outlook to read it correctly. And calendar is vital in many organizations. A smartphone can help but often there are attachments to a meeting invite which are difficult to read on a phone, and difficult to get back to your computer from the phone. I think the calendar is the primary reason Outlook is still in use.
Never heard of any of that. I've never talked to VMware, I only use what IT put on my box. I am just a user, I am not IT and have not attended the classes on how to do this, I just want to get work done. It does not work for me and I'm technically very savvy. All online docs refer to versions of vmware I don't have, or talks about ubuntu instead of kubuntu, or is relevant to Windows VMware instead of OSX VMware (Fusion). There is ZERO documentation that came with VMware, how would I know about all of this? I don't know what VMware recommends, I don't read their newsletters, but in all the VMware forums searches I've made on the issue no one ever said to avoid vmware tools. I don't see how your "help" is helpful unless you just want to mock someone for not knowing the same esoterica that you do.
OSX does not do this. You can install anything you want there. Microsoft store is irrelevant anyway, you were always able to install iTunes on Windows 10 assuming you weren't running the RT or other broken versions. Just head to apple.com and download it.
Or just be at a corporation where they use MS Exchange Server so that you need Office tools, or Skype for Business is in common use. That's hard to get working properly on Linux (even on OSX these are substandard implementation, and Visio isn't even available). Windows is entrenched in the enterprise for a reason, and that's not because they hate Linux.
No, it's because VMware running linux really isn't that easy to use for many people. Guy invents candle and insists that everyone builds their own candles from scratch and please don't use the lightbulb because it's for noobs.
It is relatively difficult. It sucks up huge amounts of diskspace for me and in some cases causes significant slowdowns. It never quite works perfectly (I've got an ubuntu image that won't get time from the host system and I can't figure out why). Sharing files can be complicated, any new kernel release has a good chance to break the VMware Tools which then has to be rebuilt, and so forth. Now try putting a team of 30 people doing this and it's going to be a constant administrative headache.
I can see it being useful. A lot of people need or want to develop on Linux, however corporate needs also require fully compatible Office applications. So this cuts things down so that you can be a developer but only have one computer. If it works of course. The bootcamp for OSX is not a good solution for this, and VMware is often too resource intensive. The drawaback is that it's the spyware edition of Windows, it would be nicer to see this in Windows 7 and 8.1, though I can understand that it requires major core OS changes (the "real" operating system).
Ie, I've had to use Cygwin tools under Windows for my primary job and it felt clumsy much of the time (this was before MINGW improved enough to viable for the same purpose). At a different job I had to use two computers, one for development and one for documents and email.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it shouldn't matter, but in the real world it does matter a lot. It absolutely affects interview results, and it is very probably affecting promotions and raises in many jobs. If you're not in the sports or entertainment industry then best advice is to speak properly.
Junior engineering in junior high school? What sort of stuff did they teach?
Economists, not always residing in the same dimension as the rest of us.
Netflix net flicks canned by Cannes.
Naw, the center of Europe in in Lithuania. France is too far west.
Goonies of course. Although All About Eve should definitely get honorable mention for tackling a complex subject rarely discussed at matinee.
Well no, they died off along with other minicomputers and workstations, due to the influx of the PC monoculture. I think even the Itanium was enough for HP to deprecate it's PA-RISC line. The good-enough solution with the 800lb Intel and AMD gorillas able to keep squeezing more and more performance out of a legacy architecture and supply it at commodity prices.
Intel's plan did work. The IA-64 wasn't planned to be an x86 killer directly, though it would have been a nice bonus if it had worked. There is far more to the computing world and to Intel than the PC. The higher level IA-64 architecture was far ahead of i386, probably even Pentium, though the silicon process needed work. Even so it had a pretty good run in high end server markets.
That should be irrelevant. RISC architecture doesn't care about the decoder front end, only the x86-64 is deeply concerned with it because it's forced into backwards compatibility. Dump the requirement to support legacy systems and the decoder becomes the simplest part of the system.
I think there's a bubble effect happening with a lot of people, they can only a limited viewpoint based on seeing a monoculture for so long. Hearing these sorts of questions is sort of like heaing someone ask why Chevrolet exists when we already have Ford. They've only ever seen and used a PC perhaps and only vaguely know of other types of computers, and certainly have no background in computer architecture.
The PC drove the development of the ia-32 architecture, and the PC was a toy computer for home and office desktop markets, and it grew up in the hobbyist world. The same with the Apple proeduct line, it wasn't focused on professional computing. It wasn't until the home and hobbyist computers got beefier were able to approach the capabilities of other professional computing platforms that the need to have more sophisticated operating systems and applications arose. Intel and Motorola were not idle during those times, they did have other architectures that weren't used on small computers. Mostly it was for compatibility, no one really wanted to toss out DOS and Windows just because there was a better chip out there.
Because native support for i386 is technically a pain in the ass, though it does make business sense if you need to be in the home computer market. It was one of Intel's attempts to break free of it's own monopoly.
i386 is a legacy product with a line of design decisions for backwards compatibility that stretch all the way back to the first 4004. Surely we've managed to come up with better designs since then. i386 is unsuitable for modern high performance computing. IA-64 follows a lot of good RISC principles, like eliminating unneeded 16 and 32 bit legacy support which frees up core space for more useful features, such as more registers, parallel operations, etc.
Sure, x86-64 is fast too, but it does this through brute force and not elegance.
It's for enhanced user experience. But yes, the stupidest idea from Microsoft ever was to allow scripting in documents, and not just basic scripting but scripts with tons of control over your computer. They should just go ask a 10 year old, "would this be a good idea?" and they'd be better off.
It's Sierra, 10.12.4. I do get the message that the file was downloaded from the internet and it won't run, but you get past that by right clicking on the app and select "open". You can change a security setting also (allow from app store and identified developers) and I think IT pre-selected this as a group policy for us. So maybe I hadn't run into the issue as hard like a home user would.
I've got applications designed and sold for the Mac which do not appear in the Apple Store (and that store is full of crap, just like the Microsoft Store or any smart phone store).
So it's true, MacOS is getting worse, but it's losing the race to the bottom as Windows is still far in the lead.
It's true, OWA can work. I really hate it though, the interface is the worst for any web based email I've used. I have had cases where someone in a corporation has used the extra features of Outlook, which means you need Outlook to read it correctly. And calendar is vital in many organizations. A smartphone can help but often there are attachments to a meeting invite which are difficult to read on a phone, and difficult to get back to your computer from the phone. I think the calendar is the primary reason Outlook is still in use.
Never heard of any of that. I've never talked to VMware, I only use what IT put on my box. I am just a user, I am not IT and have not attended the classes on how to do this, I just want to get work done. It does not work for me and I'm technically very savvy. All online docs refer to versions of vmware I don't have, or talks about ubuntu instead of kubuntu, or is relevant to Windows VMware instead of OSX VMware (Fusion). There is ZERO documentation that came with VMware, how would I know about all of this? I don't know what VMware recommends, I don't read their newsletters, but in all the VMware forums searches I've made on the issue no one ever said to avoid vmware tools. I don't see how your "help" is helpful unless you just want to mock someone for not knowing the same esoterica that you do.
I've never seen that, and I installed Team Viewer on my macbook. Seriously, you can't even use the App Store if you don't have an Apple ID.
OSX does not do this. You can install anything you want there. Microsoft store is irrelevant anyway, you were always able to install iTunes on Windows 10 assuming you weren't running the RT or other broken versions. Just head to apple.com and download it.
Or just be at a corporation where they use MS Exchange Server so that you need Office tools, or Skype for Business is in common use. That's hard to get working properly on Linux (even on OSX these are substandard implementation, and Visio isn't even available). Windows is entrenched in the enterprise for a reason, and that's not because they hate Linux.
No, it's because VMware running linux really isn't that easy to use for many people. Guy invents candle and insists that everyone builds their own candles from scratch and please don't use the lightbulb because it's for noobs.
That's not how you're supposed to read Braille.
It is relatively difficult. It sucks up huge amounts of diskspace for me and in some cases causes significant slowdowns. It never quite works perfectly (I've got an ubuntu image that won't get time from the host system and I can't figure out why). Sharing files can be complicated, any new kernel release has a good chance to break the VMware Tools which then has to be rebuilt, and so forth. Now try putting a team of 30 people doing this and it's going to be a constant administrative headache.
I can see it being useful. A lot of people need or want to develop on Linux, however corporate needs also require fully compatible Office applications. So this cuts things down so that you can be a developer but only have one computer. If it works of course. The bootcamp for OSX is not a good solution for this, and VMware is often too resource intensive. The drawaback is that it's the spyware edition of Windows, it would be nicer to see this in Windows 7 and 8.1, though I can understand that it requires major core OS changes (the "real" operating system).
Ie, I've had to use Cygwin tools under Windows for my primary job and it felt clumsy much of the time (this was before MINGW improved enough to viable for the same purpose). At a different job I had to use two computers, one for development and one for documents and email.
Since when is asking people to kill themselves a conservative value?
Silicon Valley is not equipped to handle medicine. It can barely manage engineering. Instead it's all web apps and phone apps and cloud now.