Wireless airborne radar? Alright, so I'm half kidding.
You actually have a point here. One that I didn't really bother to argue. The fact that it spins could be adventageous for radar mapping of terrain or some such task. There are issues though, such as compensating for turbulence, speed of rotation (not constant), accurately determining direction and movement. And spining of the entire plane as opposed to just the radar unit has debateable merits.
gyroscopes.
No not really. Gyroscopes work for a while - but they drift. Enough to make them unsuitable for long term navigation. There are "special" gyros such as the laser ring gyro used in missle systems and military aircraft. They are not typically available to the general public and they are relativly (the craft being the reference point) large and expensive. Not to mention that a typical gyro usually spins - no doubt doubly spinning it will alter the performance to a greater or lesser degree.
Have a look at the site. The first two demo videos blur the craft out towards the end of the clip to give the impression of being invisible. I reality, the craft is not that invisible - it certainly has a center of rotation that is clearly visible, and in many ways it looks like a very large boomerang.
On of the largest drawbacks I can see is that the drone does spin around, and around and around. It will be very difficult to fit a useful payload on a craft like this. It's design is such that the cargo room for anything but the operational parts is severly limited. I might add, how does one determine the direction of travel when one's compass is constantly spinning around?
Also the amount of post processing needed to create a useful video feed from such a craft makes it almost impractical for use. Not to mention that other detection systems (IR comes to mind) would be largely incompatible with the operation of this machine.
Finally, the web site has clearly been created by the guy in the videos. It's also clear that he's completely infatuated with intellectual property. I think his craft is interesting, but in a novelty sort of way.
Our lead FMP developer managed to stretch the Access97 evaluation out to a full hour before he deleted every table in his test implementation without recovery, undo, or prompt. End of evaluation.
Access isn't the greatest thing on the planet. However, if you unreasonably expect your database to hold your hand while managing tables... I have some bad news for you!
DELETE FROM MY_TABLE;
DROP TABLE MY_TABLE;
Where did my table go! Johnny your table has gone to a better place, a happier place.
WOW. Just wow. I think that I have seen it all. This fellow has actually posted a smart, witty and insightful comment about a totally bunk product and got modded troll as a result.
And yet others defend this weak, limp wristed marketing gimmick and have been modded up. Is there no justice on slashdot!? Have the Mod gods forsaken us for the last time!?
We pray to you mod gods, remove the blight from the parent post and restore the balance of good and newb on slashdot!
This shows nothing about Wikipedia's strength in resisting vandalism. It is like calling the cops and saying "i'm going to rob a bank now", "look i'm in the bank on Maple and Main stealing money", "Oh now i'm leaving, I'm headed home to 123 Main St."
You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission.
RIIIGHT. With free hot spots all over the place how is one supposed to distinguish, free from not-free, or even not to be used. There is really no way to know, unless you can't connect.
Shame on anyone for leaving an access point open and exepecting that no one will use it. Furthermore, it's not very nice to leave it open and then mess with the connection.
"Sony's rootkit, the actual harm done is less concrete." Thing is, there is no harm done here. Of course, the communication with Home Base was poorly (if at all disclosed) but unlike the sony rootkit there is really no adverse impact to the user's system.
The best we can hope for is the ensuing lawsuit makes a PR nightmare for MS, exposing the real "plot" behind the installation of WGA and its use. General outrage from the customer base will probably give them pause in fully implementing WGA's rumored functionality.
These *are* qa issues. If these things cause an unfavorable consumer experience then they are "bugs". They should be rectified, if they are not then the QA process is not doing its job. It is QA's job to say "this is ready for prime time".
They used the scratchy ipod plastic not because they didn't know it was scratchy, but because Steve liked the look of it.
You have no way of knowing if this is the case.
I'll pitch in my 2 cents about iPods. Almost everyone I know including me, has had an iPod fail. Some of my friends have had 5 iPod failures. I also know people who have had HD crashes in their powerbook via the infamous "Click of death".
I mean, I like Apple hardware but if Apple were to start making airplanes, I sure as hell wouldn't fly in one.
Engagement manager is a standard title for someone that has high level contact with clients. He or she is usually responisble for the big picture and is accountable for sales numbers. This person is also the go to guy for the client if they have issues. This person will also have a large expense budget and will take clients out for "meetings".
MS Engagement Manager: You MUST eat your 3 lb. lobster and drink your champaign! Customer: NOOOOO!!!!!
I'm not sure where the intimidation factor is here?
BTW, I hope the.NET Compact Framework 2.0 is a lot less "compact" than CF 1.0, that restricted API truly sucked.
There are still a number of restrictions. Most of the remoting has been pulled out, which is not great considering that many devices today have a level of connectivity that would make this useful. A good deal of the niceness in ADO doesn't exist either. Serial port programming is a breeze now which is nice.
The (one and only) UI thread used to get so pre-empted you could watch the individual borders of a frame getting drawn on a screen refresh. Ugh.
The threading restrictions still exist. Although it sounds like this may change with CE 6, due out this fall.
"Also new is support for MS's.NET IDE. Together, these new capabilities seem calculated to morph CE from a closed-box, off-the-shelf OS into a more customizable OS."
CE is hardly closed and not really "off the shelf". For starters the source code for the OS is available as part of the platform builder tool. Also, the platform builder tool allows you to create releases of windows CE with different configurations, drivers and applications pre-isntalled. It is the equavlent of being about to build a custom image of windows XP, sans the explorer GUI interface (Desktop), or other system services such as RDP. The only problem is that CE looks about as old as it is, it will be nice to have a UI update. It is also the only OS that MS makes that is a "hard" real time OS and whose kernel does not provide GUI services. CE is also currently suported by VS.NET 2005, though not on the native C++ side. However,.NET applications can run on the CF 2.0 under CE and can be cable debugged, or remotely accessed using the RDP client.
Can you still talk about your perimeter security with a straight face? If you have even one employee with a mobile device connecting to your network, chances are you answered "No" to that last question? The mobile devices you know and love are great for productivity, but they have completely changed the vulnerability state of our networks. Norm Laudermilch tells you why you should be afraid, very afraid?
Can i even say the words "perimeter security" with a straight face. Ha, no. This is a bunch FUD created by people (or one in particular) who doesn't have enough work to do over the course of a day.
Sure, mobile devices have a number of transmission channels. It makes them useful. The reason why they are not a real tangible risk is that they are incredibly difficult to configure and operate in a networked mode. Getting a windows mobile phone to connect to a network and do something useful takes about three minutes by hand. Not to mention that their programming API's usually contain a much smaller subset of functions than that of a full blown pc.
Reading through the article there are more outlandish claims such as "The native security features of today's mobile devices are not capable of protecting against attacks like [mobile to mobile propagation], so it would be trivial to infect, say, an entire coffee shop full of Bluetooth phones in just a few minutes."
Right, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. The mobile device market is incredibly diversified. There are so many phones and capabilities that the notion of One Worm to rule them all is preposterous. This also assumes that everyone in the coffee shop has their phone in whore mode, accepting connections from any shiny device that walks by.
He goes on to suggest that "The mobile devices then walk out of the coffee shop and in the front door of corporate offices all over the world, past the perimeter security devices and all other network security protections, cradle to the desktop, and infect organizations in the worst possible spot: at the heart of the network, where security controls are the thinnest."
How? Almost every desktop PC in a corporate network has AV software on it. Any malicious code coming from the handheld would be detected by the AV software. Not to mention that the desktop sync software would ALSO need to be vulnerable.
Lets also examine the likelihood of this occurring: It would require the following scenario: the handheld device has a flaw that allows the transfer and execution of malicious code, the infector and the infected must be of the same type, they would also both need to have BT or Wi-Fi enabled, though I suspect that BT is much more a risk than wi-fi (most mobile devices don't provide services via wi-fi, but they do via BT). The virus would also need to behave itself such that the OS won't crash. Usually upon infection there are obvious signs of corruption. Slow downs, crashes, restarts. Then corporate man/woman would need to plug his/her device into his PC. From here the handheld may, or may not have a bridged connection directly to the network. Alternatively the handheld might be able to exploit a hole in the sync software such that it can remotely execute code on the host desktop. Finally, the handheld would execute a PC based worm that would not be in an up to date virus def. file.
Is it just me or does it seem like the planets need to align nicely for this work?
Google 5.0, 'an innovation factory that produces a torrent of new Web-based services, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Base'
Innovation factories are great - innovation is great. I'm really hard pressed to figure out how google is making more money by deploying these products. Sure Gmail has adsense, but how many of those ads are really relevent? My experience has been mostly "miss". More over, do the clicks really pay for the cost of deploying and maintaining the accounts, who knows? How does Google Desktop add to the bottom line?
The thing that I keep looking at from Google is some diversification. At the momement AdWords are pretty much the only way they make money, granted a lot of it. However, as other engines ramp up, I'm thinking of Yahoo! in particular, the value of the words goes down. The same will hold true for google's only source of income.
The Internet, he says, will level the playing field for China's enormous rural underclass; once the country's small villages are connected, he says, students thousands of miles from Shanghai or Beijing will be able to access online course materials from M.I.T. or Harvard and fully educate themselves
"Fully Educate Themselves". Not likely. For one, the courses are in english. Two, almost all of the courses on M.I.T.'s Open Courseware site require the purchase of multiple $100+ text books. In addition there is no feedback when following the courses. Unless you understand *how* to learn its very difficult to use these courses effectively.
Those are issues though, that only come to pass when "all the villiages are connected" and by definition reliably powered (which they are not). Furthermore, access is great - however the very nature of learning, long periods of reading, problem solving require that those wishing to learn have a dedicated console, or computer to utilize.
I'm all for educating the masses, I just think that running around spouting this "vision" is disingenuous.
The reason for the defections has less to do with support and more to do with the direction the product line is going. Take a look at the new lenovo pc's feature list (towards the bottom of the page). They are 2x the size of the current think pads. They are not nearly as well constructed. Also, many of the "entry level" models don't support the same features that come standard with the existing think pad line. Have a look at the current think pad feature list (bottom) .
The difference between the old product (the real IBM product) and the new product is obvious. I think it will be some time before the lenovo product attains the level of workmaship that IBM was capabale of, and that I think is the reason for customer defection.
The real fear is really, how long before the old think pad models are
I'll preface this with: Boot Camp changes everything.
Let's be honest, no one wants to buy a Dell. They are ugly, utilitarian, and made from varying grades of plastic. I personally own a ThinkPad, good computer, but it still looks like a PC. I really do enjoy the look of the MacBook (WinBook?:-)) Enter Boot Camp and your comments...
For decades the price point for music players has been around $100. I look at it the other way. If Apple can convince people to pay $300 (or $400!) for a music player than why not a $3000 (or $600!) computer.
Yes, but the iPod allows you to take all of your music, with you that has value. People appreciate music, and it's variety. Increase the variety a user can take with them, and the price they are willing to spend for such a device goes up. The iPod is really easy to understand too - this makes the decision a little easier.
The problem with buying a Mac, is that you aren't just buying a new computer, you are buying a new way of working with computers. That's intimidating for a lot of people. It's also not what they *want*, they just want to buy a new computer. I don't think as many people are fed up with their PC's as we think. I'm actually not fed up with my PC at all (except for XP64's lack of drivers, that is, technically not MS's problem:-))
That said, I don't really see Apple gaining a lot of marketshare, but so what? As a company they are plenty healthy. Maybe not growing as fast investors want, but they're certainly not shrinking. Looking at Apple I don't really see much in the way of strategic vulnerability. Yes, Adobe and Microsoft are the gatekeepers of the critical software tools, but neither one of those companies has any reason to hang Apple out to dry; at worst they'll play their hand to get what they can from Apple.
On the first point I'm going to disagree. I said before that Boot Camp changes everything, the reason is that I think that Apple has just told the world that they are a hardware company. I think that as you so aplty pointed out earlier, people aren't paying for upgrades. Software is expensive to develop, but it is even more expensive to support. Yes, the cost per unit goes down as more copies are sold, but I'm not sure how many copies Apple is selling. Boot Camp allows Apple to reach a whole new audience with their hardware, their money maker. That audience is all of those people using a PC that don't really want or can't switch. I think that the next few quarters we can expect to see a significant expansion of Apple's harware business. As for the second point, I agree licences are licenses. If adobe can sell a decent number of licenses for OS X, then they will continue to do so. It's pretty much a no brainer, and the decision doesn't have a whole lot to do with what OS is involved. It is purely a numbers game.
Microsoft on the other hand seems a lot more vulnerable with no place to grow their core markets, and open-source chomping at the bit to get into the corporate world.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "vulnerable" MS products are still pretty good, especially from a developer's perspective..NET has been a revolution. It take's a number of well thought out ideas, and consolidates them into a single platform. The flexibilty of.net is worth the price of admission in my opinion. Office has no equal, and the sharepoint and collaborative aspects of office are pretty amazing. I'm finding though that some companies don't really understand them.
I think thought that you've really hit the nail on the head "place to grow their core markets". There really isn't anywhere to go, there is no "next big thing" there are a bunch of "next little thing(s)" but MS has pretty much cooked app development, office productivity and desktop. I could actually see there being a use for rapid build and customization of applications for med. sized businesses, on going support or even a small re
I don't like the article at all, it is after all based on a forrester report. I was more pointing out that the call should be for apple to sieze this opportunity and try to convert these unhappy people with cash.
Those 5.4 million people who might defect, really don't make a difference to MS. I'm pretty sure that at this point, licensing of windows is a fixed cost to companies like Dell (on an annual basis). I'm quite certain that it is not directly related to the number of the PC's that they sell. For smaller outfits they will need to pay full boat and pass the cost on to the customer - but i think that this is far less the case than the typical dell scenario.
With that said, MS makes about 10B a quarter, much of this is from B2B licensing of windows, office and the other enterprise applications (sharepoint, exchange, sql server, win 2k3 etc.).
I'm fairly certain that erosion of the consumer base is not going to have a significant effect on revenue for MS, that is why this is an opportunity for apple, and not really a big deal for MS. The article should have been written in such a way.
Trying to say that an OSX user is paying $100 for an update is really deceptive. OSX "updates" are pretty much a completely new OS. It's more like Windows 95 -> 98 (which Microsoft charged for), 98 -> 98SE (which Microsoft charged for), or 98SE -> ME (which...well, I'm sure you get the point).
I believe I called them Major Releases of OS X, hardly an update. I used 2001 as the cutoff date for discussion purposes as it is also most relevent.
On the whole your response does not convince me of the time I would save by having an upgrade to Windows.
You've been using Windows too long.
Rather presumptuous don't you think? I own a mac, I also support mac's.
OS upgrades on OS X make games run faster.
Direct X upgrades on the PC make games run faster. Also, better code by the game developers make games run faster.
The next upgrade (assuming you have an Intel machine) may well introduce an emulation environment allowing Mac User's to run more games, more even than a Window's PC can when you count the Mac and X-Windows only titles.
Huh? There are very few Mac only games, most notable are those produced by Ambrosia. For the most part the PC is the game platform of choice. Emulation is not good for frame rates unless you are talking about Pac Man. But what does this have to do with being more productive?
Btw, I have an AMD chip - Intel hasn't had the edge for years now.
So you've chose a dev system that only runs on one platform and you argue that that has something to do with the OS?
You are being obtuse because... you're whole argument was that an OS upgrade was going to help my productivity. I'm saying that if i run vs.net 2005 on 2k, or XP, there will be no tangible difference in the speed to build and deploy applications. Moreover, the upgrade to vista is probably *not* going to speed up my development. It would be a different story if we were talking vs.net 03 and vs.net 05.
Btw, Xcode also runs on one platform, Mac. Keep in mind that something like Xcode is a standalone application, just because it is bundled doesn't mean that it's performance is linked to the new OS.
Improvements to the OS and bundled tools certainly improve Web development, if you choose the right tools.
Honestly, the tools discussion isn't even within the scope of this conversation. I choose my tools based on what makes my life easy, and gives me the widest range of options. Such a statement is in itself completely relative to the programmer and her/his needs.
While taste in client software is not dependent upon the underlying OS
Yes, I am correct.
, the stability, speed, and security of the data and application are.
These have nothing to do with my day to day productivity. They might make you feel better about the computer you are using, but at the end of the day, they don't improve your ability to manage your e-mail and calendars.
What about system level services? I can run grammar checking within my e-mail and calendar, and pretty much anything else. Can you do that in Outlook?
Yup, I can grammar check and spell check in Outlook.
If you want to play that game, I get e-mail alerts as soon as the mail arrives, no polling. I use exchange and outlook. Entourage does not support this feature. Instant alerts has a tangible benefit to my productivity. I also get instant alters on my mobile device.
In addition, I can read, compose, revise, and send e-mail in outlook without ever touching the mouse. THAT makes me more productive.
What about instantaneous translations of text between languages? Can you right-click and a message in Outlook to change text from Japanese to English? I can, because my OS was upgraded to support it.
Micro, Dude. How does this really me or you be more productive human being? Are you really going to trust translation software for my correspondence? Probably not. *Maybe* I will be able to decipher some translated german web page, great. In the end it a crap shoot. Translation is a wiz bang feature that does not significantly increase day to day productivity. That is not to say that in the future that it won't be great, our current consumer level translation tech level is pretty low across the board.
What about support for mouse gestures?
TBH, this might actually help some people. I tried them with Firefox, and I'm not sure that I really lik
However, nearly every major release of the Mac OS has included some nifty additional software that by itself is virtually worth the price of the entire upgrade. Spotlight, iPhoto, Dashboard, etc. This is why Mac users upgrade--not because the old version has quit working (OS X is solid enough that a version one or two revisions ago works fine), but to get the new stuff.
I never said that the upgrades didn't have value; I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless airborne radar? Alright, so I'm half kidding.
You actually have a point here. One that I didn't really bother to argue. The fact that it spins could be adventageous for radar mapping of terrain or some such task. There are issues though, such as compensating for turbulence, speed of rotation (not constant), accurately determining direction and movement. And spining of the entire plane as opposed to just the radar unit has debateable merits.
gyroscopes.
No not really. Gyroscopes work for a while - but they drift. Enough to make them unsuitable for long term navigation. There are "special" gyros such as the laser ring gyro used in missle systems and military aircraft. They are not typically available to the general public and they are relativly (the craft being the reference point) large and expensive. Not to mention that a typical gyro usually spins - no doubt doubly spinning it will alter the performance to a greater or lesser degree.
Have a look at the site. The first two demo videos blur the craft out towards the end of the clip to give the impression of being invisible. I reality, the craft is not that invisible - it certainly has a center of rotation that is clearly visible, and in many ways it looks like a very large boomerang.
On of the largest drawbacks I can see is that the drone does spin around, and around and around. It will be very difficult to fit a useful payload on a craft like this. It's design is such that the cargo room for anything but the operational parts is severly limited. I might add, how does one determine the direction of travel when one's compass is constantly spinning around?
Also the amount of post processing needed to create a useful video feed from such a craft makes it almost impractical for use. Not to mention that other detection systems (IR comes to mind) would be largely incompatible with the operation of this machine.
Finally, the web site has clearly been created by the guy in the videos. It's also clear that he's completely infatuated with intellectual property. I think his craft is interesting, but in a novelty sort of way.
Our lead FMP developer managed to stretch the Access97 evaluation out to a full hour before he deleted every table in his test implementation without recovery, undo, or prompt. End of evaluation.
Access isn't the greatest thing on the planet. However, if you unreasonably expect your database to hold your hand while managing tables... I have some bad news for you!
DELETE FROM MY_TABLE;
DROP TABLE MY_TABLE;
Where did my table go! Johnny your table has gone to a better place, a happier place.
WOW. Just wow. I think that I have seen it all. This fellow has actually posted a smart, witty and insightful comment about a totally bunk product and got modded troll as a result.
And yet others defend this weak, limp wristed marketing gimmick and have been modded up.
Is there no justice on slashdot!? Have the Mod gods forsaken us for the last time!?
We pray to you mod gods, remove the blight from the parent post and restore the balance of good and newb on slashdot!
This shows nothing about Wikipedia's strength in resisting vandalism. It is like calling the cops and saying "i'm going to rob a bank now", "look i'm in the bank on Maple and Main stealing money", "Oh now i'm leaving, I'm headed home to 123 Main St."
You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission.
RIIIGHT. With free hot spots all over the place how is one supposed to distinguish, free from not-free, or even not to be used. There is really no way to know, unless you can't connect.
Shame on anyone for leaving an access point open and exepecting that no one will use it. Furthermore, it's not very nice to leave it open and then mess with the connection.
"Sony's rootkit, the actual harm done is less concrete." Thing is, there is no harm done here. Of course, the communication with Home Base was poorly (if at all disclosed) but unlike the sony rootkit there is really no adverse impact to the user's system.
The best we can hope for is the ensuing lawsuit makes a PR nightmare for MS, exposing the real "plot" behind the installation of WGA and its use. General outrage from the customer base will probably give them pause in fully implementing WGA's rumored functionality.
Go lawyers. Umm wait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_of_death
The term is also used more broadly to refer to failures of several other kinds of disk storage systems.
Thank you for playing.
ipod plastic, heat issues, TiBook hinges
These *are* qa issues. If these things cause an unfavorable consumer experience then they are "bugs". They should be rectified, if they are not then the QA process is not doing its job. It is QA's job to say "this is ready for prime time".
They used the scratchy ipod plastic not because they didn't know it was scratchy, but because Steve liked the look of it.
You have no way of knowing if this is the case.
I'll pitch in my 2 cents about iPods. Almost everyone I know including me, has had an iPod fail. Some of my friends have had 5 iPod failures. I also know people who have had HD crashes in their powerbook via the infamous "Click of death".
I mean, I like Apple hardware but if Apple were to start making airplanes, I sure as hell wouldn't fly in one.
Sharepoint is clearly looking down upon Lotus notes.
Engagement manager is a standard title for someone that has high level contact with clients. He or she is usually responisble for the big picture and is accountable for sales numbers. This person is also the go to guy for the client if they have issues. This person will also have a large expense budget and will take clients out for "meetings".
MS Engagement Manager: You MUST eat your 3 lb. lobster and drink your champaign!
Customer: NOOOOO!!!!!
I'm not sure where the intimidation factor is here?
"Windows CE is a hard real-time operating system."
e chno/realtme/default.aspx
h aredsrccode/default.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/usewinemb/ce/t
The code avaiability is best explained here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/usewinemb/ce/s
The bottom line is that the core CE code is made available, but many of the appliactions, services, and drivers are not.
BTW, I hope the .NET Compact Framework 2.0 is a lot less "compact" than CF 1.0, that restricted API truly sucked.
There are still a number of restrictions. Most of the remoting has been pulled out, which is not great considering that many devices today have a level of connectivity that would make this useful. A good deal of the niceness in ADO doesn't exist either. Serial port programming is a breeze now which is nice.
The (one and only) UI thread used to get so pre-empted you could watch the individual borders of a frame getting drawn on a screen refresh. Ugh.
The threading restrictions still exist. Although it sounds like this may change with CE 6, due out this fall.
"Also new is support for MS's .NET IDE. Together, these new capabilities seem calculated to morph CE from a closed-box, off-the-shelf OS into a more customizable OS."
.NET applications can run on the CF 2.0 under CE and can be cable debugged, or remotely accessed using the RDP client.
CE is hardly closed and not really "off the shelf". For starters the source code for the OS is available as part of the platform builder tool. Also, the platform builder tool allows you to create releases of windows CE with different configurations, drivers and applications pre-isntalled. It is the equavlent of being about to build a custom image of windows XP, sans the explorer GUI interface (Desktop), or other system services such as RDP. The only problem is that CE looks about as old as it is, it will be nice to have a UI update. It is also the only OS that MS makes that is a "hard" real time OS and whose kernel does not provide GUI services. CE is also currently suported by VS.NET 2005, though not on the native C++ side. However,
Can you still talk about your perimeter security with a straight face? If you have even one employee with a mobile device connecting to your network, chances are you answered "No" to that last question? The mobile devices you know and love are great for productivity, but they have completely changed the vulnerability state of our networks. Norm Laudermilch tells you why you should be afraid, very afraid?
Can i even say the words "perimeter security" with a straight face. Ha, no. This is a bunch FUD created by people (or one in particular) who doesn't have enough work to do over the course of a day.
Sure, mobile devices have a number of transmission channels. It makes them useful. The reason why they are not a real tangible risk is that they are incredibly difficult to configure and operate in a networked mode. Getting a windows mobile phone to connect to a network and do something useful takes about three minutes by hand. Not to mention that their programming API's usually contain a much smaller subset of functions than that of a full blown pc.
Reading through the article there are more outlandish claims such as "The native security features of today's mobile devices are not capable of protecting against attacks like [mobile to mobile propagation], so it would be trivial to infect, say, an entire coffee shop full of Bluetooth phones in just a few minutes."
Right, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. The mobile device market is incredibly diversified. There are so many phones and capabilities that the notion of One Worm to rule them all is preposterous. This also assumes that everyone in the coffee shop has their phone in whore mode, accepting connections from any shiny device that walks by.
He goes on to suggest that "The mobile devices then walk out of the coffee shop and in the front door of corporate offices all over the world, past the perimeter security devices and all other network security protections, cradle to the desktop, and infect organizations in the worst possible spot: at the heart of the network, where security controls are the thinnest."
How? Almost every desktop PC in a corporate network has AV software on it. Any malicious code coming from the handheld would be detected by the AV software. Not to mention that the desktop sync software would ALSO need to be vulnerable.
Lets also examine the likelihood of this occurring: It would require the following scenario: the handheld device has a flaw that allows the transfer and execution of malicious code, the infector and the infected must be of the same type, they would also both need to have BT or Wi-Fi enabled, though I suspect that BT is much more a risk than wi-fi (most mobile devices don't provide services via wi-fi, but they do via BT). The virus would also need to behave itself such that the OS won't crash. Usually upon infection there are obvious signs of corruption. Slow downs, crashes, restarts. Then corporate man/woman would need to plug his/her device into his PC. From here the handheld may, or may not have a bridged connection directly to the network. Alternatively the handheld might be able to exploit a hole in the sync software such that it can remotely execute code on the host desktop. Finally, the handheld would execute a PC based worm that would not be in an up to date virus def. file.
Is it just me or does it seem like the planets need to align nicely for this work?
I agree completely.
Google 5.0, 'an innovation factory that produces a torrent of new Web-based services, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Base'
Innovation factories are great - innovation is great. I'm really hard pressed to figure out how google is making more money by deploying these products. Sure Gmail has adsense, but how many of those ads are really relevent? My experience has been mostly "miss". More over, do the clicks really pay for the cost of deploying and maintaining the accounts, who knows? How does Google Desktop add to the bottom line?
The thing that I keep looking at from Google is some diversification. At the momement AdWords are pretty much the only way they make money, granted a lot of it. However, as other engines ramp up, I'm thinking of Yahoo! in particular, the value of the words goes down. The same will hold true for google's only source of income.
i did not know that. add that to the list :-)
The Internet, he says, will level the playing field for China's enormous rural underclass; once the country's small villages are connected, he says, students thousands of miles from Shanghai or Beijing will be able to access online course materials from M.I.T. or Harvard and fully educate themselves
"Fully Educate Themselves". Not likely. For one, the courses are in english. Two, almost all of the courses on M.I.T.'s Open Courseware site require the purchase of multiple $100+ text books. In addition there is no feedback when following the courses. Unless you understand *how* to learn its very difficult to use these courses effectively.
Those are issues though, that only come to pass when "all the villiages are connected" and by definition reliably powered (which they are not). Furthermore, access is great - however the very nature of learning, long periods of reading, problem solving require that those wishing to learn have a dedicated console, or computer to utilize.
I'm all for educating the masses, I just think that running around spouting this "vision" is disingenuous.
The reason for the defections has less to do with support and more to do with the direction the product line is going. Take a look at the new lenovo pc's feature list (towards the bottom of the page). They are 2x the size of the current think pads. They are not nearly as well constructed. Also, many of the "entry level" models don't support the same features that come standard with the existing think pad line. Have a look at the current think pad feature list (bottom) .
The difference between the old product (the real IBM product) and the new product is obvious. I think it will be some time before the lenovo product attains the level of workmaship that IBM was capabale of, and that I think is the reason for customer defection.
The real fear is really, how long before the old think pad models are
The original AJAX calendaring tool.
Now we're talking...
:-)) Enter Boot Camp and your comments...
:-))
.NET has been a revolution. It take's a number of well thought out ideas, and consolidates them into a single platform. The flexibilty of .net is worth the price of admission in my opinion. Office has no equal, and the sharepoint and collaborative aspects of office are pretty amazing. I'm finding though that some companies don't really understand them.
I'll preface this with: Boot Camp changes everything.
Let's be honest, no one wants to buy a Dell. They are ugly, utilitarian, and made from varying grades of plastic. I personally own a ThinkPad, good computer, but it still looks like a PC. I really do enjoy the look of the MacBook (WinBook?
For decades the price point for music players has been around $100. I look at it the other way. If Apple can convince people to pay $300 (or $400!) for a music player than why not a $3000 (or $600!) computer.
Yes, but the iPod allows you to take all of your music, with you that has value. People appreciate music, and it's variety. Increase the variety a user can take with them, and the price they are willing to spend for such a device goes up. The iPod is really easy to understand too - this makes the decision a little easier.
The problem with buying a Mac, is that you aren't just buying a new computer, you are buying a new way of working with computers. That's intimidating for a lot of people. It's also not what they *want*, they just want to buy a new computer. I don't think as many people are fed up with their PC's as we think. I'm actually not fed up with my PC at all (except for XP64's lack of drivers, that is, technically not MS's problem
That said, I don't really see Apple gaining a lot of marketshare, but so what? As a company they are plenty healthy. Maybe not growing as fast investors want, but they're certainly not shrinking. Looking at Apple I don't really see much in the way of strategic vulnerability. Yes, Adobe and Microsoft are the gatekeepers of the critical software tools, but neither one of those companies has any reason to hang Apple out to dry; at worst they'll play their hand to get what they can from Apple.
On the first point I'm going to disagree. I said before that Boot Camp changes everything, the reason is that I think that Apple has just told the world that they are a hardware company. I think that as you so aplty pointed out earlier, people aren't paying for upgrades. Software is expensive to develop, but it is even more expensive to support. Yes, the cost per unit goes down as more copies are sold, but I'm not sure how many copies Apple is selling. Boot Camp allows Apple to reach a whole new audience with their hardware, their money maker. That audience is all of those people using a PC that don't really want or can't switch. I think that the next few quarters we can expect to see a significant expansion of Apple's harware business.
As for the second point, I agree licences are licenses. If adobe can sell a decent number of licenses for OS X, then they will continue to do so. It's pretty much a no brainer, and the decision doesn't have a whole lot to do with what OS is involved. It is purely a numbers game.
Microsoft on the other hand seems a lot more vulnerable with no place to grow their core markets, and open-source chomping at the bit to get into the corporate world.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "vulnerable" MS products are still pretty good, especially from a developer's perspective.
I think thought that you've really hit the nail on the head "place to grow their core markets". There really isn't anywhere to go, there is no "next big thing" there are a bunch of "next little thing(s)" but MS has pretty much cooked app development, office productivity and desktop. I could actually see there being a use for rapid build and customization of applications for med. sized businesses, on going support or even a small re
Thanks for the reasonable reply :)
I don't like the article at all, it is after all based on a forrester report. I was more pointing out that the call should be for apple to sieze this opportunity and try to convert these unhappy people with cash.
Those 5.4 million people who might defect, really don't make a difference to MS. I'm pretty sure that at this point, licensing of windows is a fixed cost to companies like Dell (on an annual basis). I'm quite certain that it is not directly related to the number of the PC's that they sell. For smaller outfits they will need to pay full boat and pass the cost on to the customer - but i think that this is far less the case than the typical dell scenario.
With that said, MS makes about 10B a quarter, much of this is from B2B licensing of windows, office and the other enterprise applications (sharepoint, exchange, sql server, win 2k3 etc.).
I'm fairly certain that erosion of the consumer base is not going to have a significant effect on revenue for MS, that is why this is an opportunity for apple, and not really a big deal for MS. The article should have been written in such a way.
Trying to say that an OSX user is paying $100 for an update is really deceptive. OSX "updates" are pretty much a completely new OS. It's more like Windows 95 -> 98 (which Microsoft charged for), 98 -> 98SE (which Microsoft charged for), or 98SE -> ME (which...well, I'm sure you get the point).
I believe I called them Major Releases of OS X, hardly an update. I used 2001 as the cutoff date for discussion purposes as it is also most relevent.
On the whole your response does not convince me of the time I would save by having an upgrade to Windows.
You've been using Windows too long.
Rather presumptuous don't you think? I own a mac, I also support mac's.
OS upgrades on OS X make games run faster.
Direct X upgrades on the PC make games run faster. Also, better code by the game developers make games run faster.
The next upgrade (assuming you have an Intel machine) may well introduce an emulation environment allowing Mac User's to run more games, more even than a Window's PC can when you count the Mac and X-Windows only titles.
Huh? There are very few Mac only games, most notable are those produced by Ambrosia. For the most part the PC is the game platform of choice. Emulation is not good for frame rates unless you are talking about Pac Man. But what does this have to do with being more productive?
Btw, I have an AMD chip - Intel hasn't had the edge for years now.
So you've chose a dev system that only runs on one platform and you argue that that has something to do with the OS?
You are being obtuse because... you're whole argument was that an OS upgrade was going to help my productivity. I'm saying that if i run vs.net 2005 on 2k, or XP, there will be no tangible difference in the speed to build and deploy applications. Moreover, the upgrade to vista is probably *not* going to speed up my development. It would be a different story if we were talking vs.net 03 and vs.net 05.
Btw, Xcode also runs on one platform, Mac. Keep in mind that something like Xcode is a standalone application, just because it is bundled doesn't mean that it's performance is linked to the new OS.
Improvements to the OS and bundled tools certainly improve Web development, if you choose the right tools.
Honestly, the tools discussion isn't even within the scope of this conversation. I choose my tools based on what makes my life easy, and gives me the widest range of options. Such a statement is in itself completely relative to the programmer and her/his needs.
While taste in client software is not dependent upon the underlying OS
Yes, I am correct.
, the stability, speed, and security of the data and application are.
These have nothing to do with my day to day productivity. They might make you feel better about the computer you are using, but at the end of the day, they don't improve your ability to manage your e-mail and calendars.
What about system level services? I can run grammar checking within my e-mail and calendar, and pretty much anything else. Can you do that in Outlook?
Yup, I can grammar check and spell check in Outlook.
If you want to play that game, I get e-mail alerts as soon as the mail arrives, no polling. I use exchange and outlook. Entourage does not support this feature. Instant alerts has a tangible benefit to my productivity. I also get instant alters on my mobile device.
In addition, I can read, compose, revise, and send e-mail in outlook without ever touching the mouse. THAT makes me more productive.
What about instantaneous translations of text between languages? Can you right-click and a message in Outlook to change text from Japanese to English? I can, because my OS was upgraded to support it.
Micro, Dude. How does this really me or you be more productive human being? Are you really going to trust translation software for my correspondence? Probably not. *Maybe* I will be able to decipher some translated german web page, great. In the end it a crap shoot. Translation is a wiz bang feature that does not significantly increase day to day productivity. That is not to say that in the future that it won't be great, our current consumer level translation tech level is pretty low across the board.
What about support for mouse gestures?
TBH, this might actually help some people. I tried them with Firefox, and I'm not sure that I really lik
However, nearly every major release of the Mac OS has included some nifty additional software that by itself is virtually worth the price of the entire upgrade. Spotlight, iPhoto, Dashboard, etc. This is why Mac users upgrade--not because the old version has quit working (OS X is solid enough that a version one or two revisions ago works fine), but to get the new stuff.
I never said that the upgrades didn't have value; I'm making the point that Apple has far more to lose revenue wise than Microsoft. I'm also making the point that this is by implication "No News" - it's not really a big deal for MS.