According to their testing, 0 to 37 feet of stopping distance were added to normal stopping distances from 60mph. Basically, at 60mph, they hammered both the accelerator and brakes. It is quite clear to me that brakes on any car should be able to overpower the engine.
Or don't do I.T with a CS degree as several others have advised above. Get a job as a developer, which you have spent 4 years learning how to do. Remember those programming and software development lifecycle classes? Get a job that involves those. No disrespect to the parent's career path, but submitter's 4-year degree does not belong behind a helpdesk.
Burger King seems like a horrible idea. Get a part-time job during school doing network administration or a side programming project (these are plentiful on-campus). This will more-than-likely lead to a summer job, or at list give you some marketable skills to find one. DO NOT get a job at Burger King which has VERY low odds of leading to any sort of interesting job. Turn your XBOX off in the evening and write some code instead so that you have something interesting to talk about at your next interview.
The $8 an hour job is what you want during the school year. Then use that experience to get yourself a real internship that treats you like a full-time employee.
Agreed. Shouldn't CS graduates be doing programming? IMHO crimping Cat5 cables, network administration, and uninstalling spyware is a better job description for tech school grads or people who have submitter's certifications but DON'T have a college degree.
At my internship I did exactly the same thing full-time employees do, and I got paid well for it. In fact, even though I was unable to finish assigned projects due to holdups elsewhere, it was no big deal because my tasks were easily taken back on by the full-timers that the tasks were originally split from. So I do not see how interships have to be about slave labor. As I see it they should be about seeing how you are as an employee in a job you might fill in the future. This was at Microsoft.
The summers before that, I worked as an I.T. assistant for a 300-employee business. There I pretty much did the same thing as the I.T. person I was helping, and we occasionally tag-teamed. The biggest difference between our daily work was that I had to go on rooftop because he had an aversion to that sort of thing. I did not make great money there (~$8.5), but free food and free board and an awesome group of coworkers to "socialize" with made for probably the best summers of my life.
Point being, don't settle for a slave labor internship, because there ARE better things out there, and the staffing agency that finds these $0-$8 jobs is just doing the minimum amount of work to find you a job as they can.
Disclaimer: I have worked for Microsoft in the past and will be working for Microsoft in the near future. I am not implying any official interpretation of the license, I am simply pointing out what the licenses say. These are merely my own thoughts on the matter.
The terms you quoted are the website terms. If you read a few paragraphs above what you quoted it refers to what "the Services" are:
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.
Through its network of Web properties, Microsoft provides you with access to a variety of resources, including developer tools, download areas, communication forums and product information (collectively "Services"). The Services, including any updates, enhancements, new features, and/or the addition of any new Web properties, are subject to the TOU.
So it seems to me that this intends that you should not copy the software that you are downloading from the site. Also, if you look at the FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/express/support/faq/) you will find this:
7. Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?
Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions.
I used Firefox all the time several years back. Then I got tired of doing the extension dance and the annoying updates whenever I launched the browser. This was around when IE7 came out. I only use IE8 nowadays.
You seem to be severely mis-informed about how DPI scaling works in Windows Vista/Windows 7.
if I wanted huge text I'd be running at 800x600
If you were smart and wanted huge text you would use DPI scaling. For instance, say at native resolution a character takes up an 8x20 pixel block. If you properly use DPI scaling, you get get that character to take up maybe 12x30 pixels (numbers are just arbitrary examples). There are a lot more pixels to use for each character this way, and you get even higher quality text than with the native resolution. Of course the downside is that less character fit on the screen. But you wanted huge text, and this is the best way to get it. Changing your resolution just gives you larger text with larger "jaggies", it does not give you the better quality that DPI scaling will.
Why should I have to change all the font sizes just to get more text onto a 1920x1080 display than I would at 800x600?
You should not have to change font sizes to get more text on a 1920x1080 display than a 800x600 display.
Exactly. Sadly some people now think an OS that can do nothing but run a browser is the holy grail of operating systems. (Chrome OS will probably do a bit more than run a browser, admittedly. And then some day a person will write a website that emulates a desktop (probably already done). Performance might be better than anything else, but the feature set will be low. From that webpage users will eventually be able to launch other webpages! And then someone may even figure out a way to launch some C++ application processes for things that really require speed. Java apps might be used for some complicated things. People will use lots of resource caching on their local machine so that they can work offline. So many features will be added that things might start to become slower. Eventually, this web-based operating system will be in a similar situation to what we have today--today's situation is pretty good. But it will take years of work...for what?
Today we already have the technologies/programs to have all of our stuff stored in the clouds. I'm going to cite mostly MS technologies because that's what I'm most familiar with, but there are others (especially a lot of open source):
E-mail: IMAP, Exchange Files: Live Mesh, Picasa, Flicker (all have desktop applications that will sync) Documents: Live Add-In For Office
In most cases, the native applications have more features than their webpage clones. The webpage versions will eventually mostly catch up in features. But it will take a lot of work. In the meantime, I envision smart people using webpages for what they do best: displaying and having minor interactions with mostly static data. We already have VERY feature rich "native code" applications, why not build on them?
Disclosure: I am interning as Microsoft. The above is my personal opinion only.
I'm not sure that we would gain anything from a database-based file system. What huge improvement would you expect? Can you imagine how many incompatibility issues such a thing might introduce?
HTML is just another layer of abstraction. It could just as well be Java, or.NET CLR, or cross-compiled C++ (GIMP). There is nothing amazing about applications in a browser, it is not necessary, and while it is convenient at times (at a computer that is not your own), when available a native code app will usually do the same job but "better".
As far as syncing, there is nothing stopping native apps from syncing to "the cloud". In fact, there is the Outlook Connector for Windows Live Mail and the Office Live tool for Word XP, 2003, and 2007. Also see IMAP and POP3. Oh, basically anything that doesn't go over port 80.
Browser is not a necessity for productivity. Handy in cases, yes. Disclosure: I'm currently interning at MS.
Windows XP had IPv6 support but it just wasn't turned on by default. It takes 10 seconds to type in the command to turn it on.
Also, if I remember correctly, the audio, networking, and display model components (plus others) were completely re-written.
Please do tell what benefits we would get out of re-writing the shell in.NET?
I took 5 minutes and set up Exchange 2007 with Spamhaus's block list, zen.spamhaus.org I believe. Blocks 95%+ of spam, and I don't even try to hide my e-mail address. Went from ~90/day to 2 or 3.
Windows 7 really adds nothing significantly new to Vista, it's basically Vista SP2, but MS is rushing it out in order to get a new name on it to try to sweep all the bad PR from Vista under the rug.
Maybe that could happen on a disk, but I've never myself known specifically of a disk that had spots it could still read but not write to. I just said what I said because it seems people are running around saying SSD failure won't be a problem because they will still be able to read their data, but they might very well have lost data in the operation.
You perform an atomic write to sectors A and B. Write A succeeds, but write B fails as that sector is worn out. Then you try to roll back sector A, only to discover that sector is also now worn out. Boom, inconsistent file state.
Perhaps Microsoft does not want to have to simultaneously support 5 operating systems. After all, they will be updating XP through 2014, by which time they will have XP, Vista, 7, something from late 2011?, and something from 2014. It gets a little ridiculous.
Lets also remember that Microsoft announced when Vista first came out that it would be the last 32 bit Microsoft OS and that the next version after Vista would be 64 bit only. "Windows 7" is 32 bit. Therefore Windows 7 isn't the successor to Vista. Therefor it is Vista with a different look and a different name.
That is an absolutely childish thing to say.
Also, please take a look here and then reconsider whether this is a major OS release or not.
Plus, I'm sure you would like them to change A LOT of stuff in the OS, then you would complain that they changed too much. Fact is, if there ever was a real change in the Windows line since 2000, the biggest one was between XP and Vista. A lot of the underlying architecture changed/improved. Enjoy.
Standard computers come with at least 3GB RAM nowadays...not an issue.
Any computer shipped in the last 2 (maybe even 3?) years can run Aeroglass just fine. Any computer from the last 7-8 years that doesn't have the embarrasing Intel graphics should be able to run Aero.
I'm not sure how it is twice the price; it is actually $150 more to order a computer from Dell with Windows XP. Also, they probably have a volume license in which they probably pay the same amount no matter what OS they install on each computer.
Finally, on a modern computer with 2-3 GB RAM, Vista will many times outperform XP due to caching and the fact that the UI is accelerated on the video card.
The simple truth is that Vista is not that bad. Actually, not bad at all. I do I.T. at a small business and there is a mix of Vista and XP machines, even some Vista 64bit. Vista has not posed much of a problem, and there are a bunch of weird 3rd party programs in use there.
So you take Vista, add a shit-ton of features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7), and surprise surprise you get a sweet operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_1003_unintended_acceleration_test/braking_distance.html
According to their testing, 0 to 37 feet of stopping distance were added to normal stopping distances from 60mph. Basically, at 60mph, they hammered both the accelerator and brakes. It is quite clear to me that brakes on any car should be able to overpower the engine.
Or don't do I.T with a CS degree as several others have advised above. Get a job as a developer, which you have spent 4 years learning how to do. Remember those programming and software development lifecycle classes? Get a job that involves those. No disrespect to the parent's career path, but submitter's 4-year degree does not belong behind a helpdesk.
Nah, he just paid a lazy staffing agency to find him a crap job.
Burger King seems like a horrible idea. Get a part-time job during school doing network administration or a side programming project (these are plentiful on-campus). This will more-than-likely lead to a summer job, or at list give you some marketable skills to find one. DO NOT get a job at Burger King which has VERY low odds of leading to any sort of interesting job. Turn your XBOX off in the evening and write some code instead so that you have something interesting to talk about at your next interview.
The $8 an hour job is what you want during the school year. Then use that experience to get yourself a real internship that treats you like a full-time employee.
Agreed. Shouldn't CS graduates be doing programming? IMHO crimping Cat5 cables, network administration, and uninstalling spyware is a better job description for tech school grads or people who have submitter's certifications but DON'T have a college degree.
At my internship I did exactly the same thing full-time employees do, and I got paid well for it. In fact, even though I was unable to finish assigned projects due to holdups elsewhere, it was no big deal because my tasks were easily taken back on by the full-timers that the tasks were originally split from. So I do not see how interships have to be about slave labor. As I see it they should be about seeing how you are as an employee in a job you might fill in the future. This was at Microsoft.
The summers before that, I worked as an I.T. assistant for a 300-employee business. There I pretty much did the same thing as the I.T. person I was helping, and we occasionally tag-teamed. The biggest difference between our daily work was that I had to go on rooftop because he had an aversion to that sort of thing. I did not make great money there (~$8.5), but free food and free board and an awesome group of coworkers to "socialize" with made for probably the best summers of my life.
Point being, don't settle for a slave labor internship, because there ARE better things out there, and the staffing agency that finds these $0-$8 jobs is just doing the minimum amount of work to find you a job as they can.
Disclaimer: I have worked for Microsoft in the past and will be working for Microsoft in the near future. I am not implying any official interpretation of the license, I am simply pointing out what the licenses say. These are merely my own thoughts on the matter.
The terms you quoted are the website terms. If you read a few paragraphs above what you quoted it refers to what "the Services" are:
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.
Through its network of Web properties, Microsoft provides you with access to a variety of resources, including developer tools, download areas, communication forums and product information (collectively "Services"). The Services, including any updates, enhancements, new features, and/or the addition of any new Web properties, are subject to the TOU.
So it seems to me that this intends that you should not copy the software that you are downloading from the site. Also, if you look at the FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/express/support/faq/) you will find this:
7. Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?
Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions.
I'm not sure how much more clear you can get.
Visual Studio Express Editions: http://www.microsoft.com/express/
I used Firefox all the time several years back. Then I got tired of doing the extension dance and the annoying updates whenever I launched the browser. This was around when IE7 came out. I only use IE8 nowadays.
You seem to be severely mis-informed about how DPI scaling works in Windows Vista/Windows 7.
if I wanted huge text I'd be running at 800x600
If you were smart and wanted huge text you would use DPI scaling. For instance, say at native resolution a character takes up an 8x20 pixel block. If you properly use DPI scaling, you get get that character to take up maybe 12x30 pixels (numbers are just arbitrary examples). There are a lot more pixels to use for each character this way, and you get even higher quality text than with the native resolution. Of course the downside is that less character fit on the screen. But you wanted huge text, and this is the best way to get it. Changing your resolution just gives you larger text with larger "jaggies", it does not give you the better quality that DPI scaling will.
Why should I have to change all the font sizes just to get more text onto a 1920x1080 display than I would at 800x600?
You should not have to change font sizes to get more text on a 1920x1080 display than a 800x600 display.
For some laughs I read your post but replaced Microsoft and Windows with rough Linux equivalents. It made even more sense!
Exactly. Sadly some people now think an OS that can do nothing but run a browser is the holy grail of operating systems. (Chrome OS will probably do a bit more than run a browser, admittedly. And then some day a person will write a website that emulates a desktop (probably already done). Performance might be better than anything else, but the feature set will be low. From that webpage users will eventually be able to launch other webpages! And then someone may even figure out a way to launch some C++ application processes for things that really require speed. Java apps might be used for some complicated things. People will use lots of resource caching on their local machine so that they can work offline. So many features will be added that things might start to become slower. Eventually, this web-based operating system will be in a similar situation to what we have today--today's situation is pretty good. But it will take years of work...for what?
Today we already have the technologies/programs to have all of our stuff stored in the clouds. I'm going to cite mostly MS technologies because that's what I'm most familiar with, but there are others (especially a lot of open source):
E-mail: IMAP, Exchange
Files: Live Mesh, Picasa, Flicker (all have desktop applications that will sync)
Documents: Live Add-In For Office
In most cases, the native applications have more features than their webpage clones. The webpage versions will eventually mostly catch up in features. But it will take a lot of work. In the meantime, I envision smart people using webpages for what they do best: displaying and having minor interactions with mostly static data. We already have VERY feature rich "native code" applications, why not build on them?
Disclosure: I am interning as Microsoft. The above is my personal opinion only.
I'm not sure that we would gain anything from a database-based file system. What huge improvement would you expect? Can you imagine how many incompatibility issues such a thing might introduce?
HTML is just another layer of abstraction. It could just as well be Java, or .NET CLR, or cross-compiled C++ (GIMP). There is nothing amazing about applications in a browser, it is not necessary, and while it is convenient at times (at a computer that is not your own), when available a native code app will usually do the same job but "better".
As far as syncing, there is nothing stopping native apps from syncing to "the cloud". In fact, there is the Outlook Connector for Windows Live Mail and the Office Live tool for Word XP, 2003, and 2007. Also see IMAP and POP3. Oh, basically anything that doesn't go over port 80.
Browser is not a necessity for productivity. Handy in cases, yes. Disclosure: I'm currently interning at MS.
without our code, you have no cost advantage over the competition
Umm if you give away the source code you won't have a cost advantage over the competition either.
Windows XP had IPv6 support but it just wasn't turned on by default. It takes 10 seconds to type in the command to turn it on. Also, if I remember correctly, the audio, networking, and display model components (plus others) were completely re-written. Please do tell what benefits we would get out of re-writing the shell in .NET?
It was a source of quite a bit of complaining that OWA did not have a decent interface on other than IE6+.
I took 5 minutes and set up Exchange 2007 with Spamhaus's block list, zen.spamhaus.org I believe. Blocks 95%+ of spam, and I don't even try to hide my e-mail address. Went from ~90/day to 2 or 3.
Windows 7 really adds nothing significantly new to Vista, it's basically Vista SP2, but MS is rushing it out in order to get a new name on it to try to sweep all the bad PR from Vista under the rug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
There are quite a few new features to Windows 7; have you even tried it?
Maybe that could happen on a disk, but I've never myself known specifically of a disk that had spots it could still read but not write to. I just said what I said because it seems people are running around saying SSD failure won't be a problem because they will still be able to read their data, but they might very well have lost data in the operation.
There is a conceivable edge case:
You perform an atomic write to sectors A and B. Write A succeeds, but write B fails as that sector is worn out. Then you try to roll back sector A, only to discover that sector is also now worn out. Boom, inconsistent file state.
This would probably be a rare occurance.
Perhaps Microsoft does not want to have to simultaneously support 5 operating systems. After all, they will be updating XP through 2014, by which time they will have XP, Vista, 7, something from late 2011?, and something from 2014. It gets a little ridiculous.
Lets also remember that Microsoft announced when Vista first came out that it would be the last 32 bit Microsoft OS and that the next version after Vista would be 64 bit only. "Windows 7" is 32 bit. Therefore Windows 7 isn't the successor to Vista. Therefor it is Vista with a different look and a different name.
That is an absolutely childish thing to say.
Also, please take a look here and then reconsider whether this is a major OS release or not.
Plus, I'm sure you would like them to change A LOT of stuff in the OS, then you would complain that they changed too much. Fact is, if there ever was a real change in the Windows line since 2000, the biggest one was between XP and Vista. A lot of the underlying architecture changed/improved. Enjoy.
Standard computers come with at least 3GB RAM nowadays...not an issue.
Any computer shipped in the last 2 (maybe even 3?) years can run Aeroglass just fine. Any computer from the last 7-8 years that doesn't have the embarrasing Intel graphics should be able to run Aero.
I'm not sure how it is twice the price; it is actually $150 more to order a computer from Dell with Windows XP. Also, they probably have a volume license in which they probably pay the same amount no matter what OS they install on each computer.
Finally, on a modern computer with 2-3 GB RAM, Vista will many times outperform XP due to caching and the fact that the UI is accelerated on the video card.
The simple truth is that Vista is not that bad. Actually, not bad at all. I do I.T. at a small business and there is a mix of Vista and XP machines, even some Vista 64bit. Vista has not posed much of a problem, and there are a bunch of weird 3rd party programs in use there. So you take Vista, add a shit-ton of features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7), and surprise surprise you get a sweet operating system.