It seems to me this $2000 amount, while it could very well be accurate, is being presented in a vacuum. Assuming this does include "soft costs" and isn't a completely artificially inflated amount for hardware, how does this amount compare to prior upgrades? How does this amount compare to open source alternatives? While the software might be free, the installation/training/maintenance costs certainly aren't.
And having just read the (5, Insightful) comment right below mine, I see I completely missed that this was for business to upgrade because I obviously didn't read the actual words in TFA. Let my prior ignorant comment stand for all posterity to jeer at. But let it be known that I did see the error of my ways.
Making a claim that it could cast "as much as $2,000" sounds to me like about as useless a number as you can have--unless the point is manipulation of the uninformed consumer. If someone told you that buying a new car could cost "as much as $100,000", wouldn't that scare you from buying a car? Hey, it's true; it could cost that much. Let's ignore the fact it almost certainly won't.
Did you know a new house could cost as much as $5 million? Your lunch could cost as much $50. Your broadband throughput could be as much as 12Mbps. Sorry, I digress.
According to the wikis, Belize, Canada, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Philippines also use the MM/DD/YYYY format, so we're not the only country using the format.
This is impossible to do with any product now, but you'll be able to do this with Windows Server N+1 as long as all your clients are also Windows N+1, but only if you also buy Microsoft Windows Office SharePoint Enteprise Search Server X. You could try to do it with current technology, but you'd have to remove one of your arbitrarily self-imposed restrictions. I could tell you which one, but I'd be reducing my chance that anything I'm saying is relevant if I guessed wrong.
I'm an "engineer" (what would have been called a systems administrator since the dawn of computing, but now doesn't sound elite enough) on the SharePoint team at a Fortune 500 company (not bragging, just giving an indication of the size/scope of the company). There's no doubt Microsoft positioned SharePoint as a platform for "the business", and not as a classical Enterprise-style, IT-maintained platform. I say this based on Microsoft's own literature that sells it as a way for the business user to get around their company's slow, beaurocratic IT departments.
For the most part, that's a fair criticism. And most users (at least that have come from our other platforms) do love it and for that very reason. For them, it is easy to produce impressive results on their own. Sure, professional designers and IT could produce an even more impressive, elegant, stable product, possibly even at less cost, but not in less time, assuming they even got around to doing it. But compared to the tools that most users are left with that they're able to use without IT involvement, it rocks.
Not surprisingly to IT, it's come full circle, and now the company is concerned about regulatory compliance, handling of confidential information, and the lack of administrative tools in SharePoint for very large and complicated sites. Also not surprisingly, the company has realized the only way to address this is more control and centralization of administration. This is just part of the circle-of-business, and I don't doubt once everybody has been moved to this model, and SharePoint has become the roadblock to getting work done, some new product will come along that makes it easy for them to produce results, starts out rogue, and then has to be reigned in by IT.
I do agree completely that there are not very many "guru-level" people on SharePoint. I'm certainly not one of them even after nearly a year on the platform. I also agree there's a big jump in cost from the "free" Windows SharePoint Servers (WSS) and the Enterprise-priced Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS). But there is a lot that can be done with the free product, though I'd argue that MOSS does have value and would likely be cheaper than redeveloping it from scratch.
Finally, I wonder at your lack of encounters with SharePoint implentations. If you're on the CRM side of consulting, I'm not surprised. I don't think many companies are looking at SharePoint as a CRM platform (though Microsoft no doubt markets it that way; they want SharePoint to be all things to all people). If you're truly a SharePoint consultant, then it might be because *BeginVent* Microsoft charges insane prices for SharePoint consultations and wants six weeks to produce a fill-in-the-form document saying what on site IT already knows *EndVent*.
*Movie X* was such an influential part of my childhood. You can't just take *X* hours of a series and cram it into a movie without losing everything magical about it. There's just too much compromise moving from *medium X* to the movies. And changing *minor element X* to *minor element Y* just proves that point. This is one movie I will definitely claim not to see. The graphics look pretty good though.
As much as I love (or at least loved) the Amiga, to be fair, there is a difference between 20 years of near stagnation (notice I don't say complete stagnation) with Amiga development, and 20 years of continuous development for Windows, Mac, and Linux. And while the goal with Amiga seems to be to keep it as much like the original product as possible, Windows, Mac, and (as far as I know) Linux have each had almost complete transformation since their original releases.
This argument has nothing to do with the quality, impressiveness, or relevance of what the Amiga was, but of what it is now. Legal dispute has kept the product from evolving with the market as the other operating systems have done. That's not a slam against the Amiga. Its simply the reality of where the product is.
I sincerely hope that this latest development can change all that and that the Amiga's inherent quality will let rise from the ashes, like something that, er, rises from ashes.
This was exactly my reaction. There's so much opportunity to have a computer replace the stuff that physical objects aren't good at. Why have it simulate (poorly) what real dice do so well? I've long wanted to try my hand at writing a program like this, but one that makes the un-fun parts of D&D faster, not one that makes the fun parts lame.
How about tracking initiative? How about showing the area of effect for a blast or burst when cover or concealment is in effect? How about Wizards of the Coast finally releases that awesome game table application they promised three years ago. Just kidding, I'm not that divorced from reality.
Maybe you should tell the Fortune 500 company I work for that social networking tools should never be mistaken for a professional solution. Maybe you just mean Facebook and Twitter should never be mistaken for professional tools, and I'd agree with that to a point. But to claim that the features of social networking tools cannot be used for professional purposes sounds naïve to me at best.
Having watched a very good presentation on Google Wave (Google Faculty Summit 2009: Google Wave), I feel I finally "get it". It's not simply Twitter 2.0. It really combines email, document collaboration, and instant messaging into a single system in a way I haven't seen done before. You could use it effectively to work just like email only or to just work like instant messaging only, but you won't.
If you watch videos (product demos, interviews, training, etc) at the time the mouse first came out, you'll laugh at the detail they go into to explain what a mouse is and how to use it. We take it for granted that it's so intuitive that a two year old can figure it out. There was a time this wasn't the case. This multitouch concept can be just as powerful, useful and usable as the mouse, and I will not be surprised when it seems just as obvious as the mouse.
Other problem is that now your both hands lay on the wide touch area and you dont have a keyboard.
I can imagine three ways to address this. First way: Touch areas on each side of the keyboard. Second way: Touch area below the keyboard. Third way: Touch area both on each side and below the keyboard.
I can see this being as natural as using a mouse. Regarding precision, I think this could be at least adequately addressed by having the application adjust it's "precision scale" for the activity involved.
This is actually a clever viral marketing campaign to guage consumer feedback to 64 vs 128 bit operating systems. Slashdot users will spend so much time arguing the pros and cons that Microsoft will get 80% of their research for free.
But seriously, I find it funny that when Microsoft copies someone else and produces been-there-done-that products, everyone complains, but when they discover Microsoft is working on forward-looking technology that few if any other vendors are working on and has no (yet) apparent use, they are reamed as well.
Have we learned nothing from "X units is enough for anyone" statements?
Personally, as long as Microsoft continues to take over the world, I'll refrain from nitpicking their strategy. You can call it evil, anti-competitive, heartless, offensive, confounding, or whatever, but not stupid or ineffective. Why did Ballmer not kill Windows Mobile 6.5? Because Microsoft doesn't make money by investing money in a product they don't sell, but do make money by producing an inferior product they do sell.
This is one of the major things that drove me to the iPhone. For years, I kept telling myself I would love a Microsoft "smart" handheld/mobile phone, because as a hobbiest developer I could write my own apps and have control over the workings of the device. But for years, I never did squat with that power. In the end, having a mobile phone that "just works" is far more productive than any potential to do neato things with Windows Mobile. I'm starting to finally understand why people buy Macs. No, it's not perfect, but it's imperfect in a way that's less frustrating.
I had not heard about the Zimbabwean Dollar before. The Wikipedia article has a great picture of the $100 billion note and the three eggs it bought when it was released. Their financial software can't even handle the $trillion numbers involved in people's bank accounts. The countries money supply was 900 quadrillion dollars in 2008! Words can't even express how insane this is.
"For a variety of reasons some development expense [10%], some quality assurance [10%] and some business reasons [80%] Nvidia will not support GPU accelerated PhysX with Nvidia GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non-Nvidia GPUs."
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me this $2000 amount, while it could very well be accurate, is being presented in a vacuum. Assuming this does include "soft costs" and isn't a completely artificially inflated amount for hardware, how does this amount compare to prior upgrades? How does this amount compare to open source alternatives? While the software might be free, the installation/training/maintenance costs certainly aren't.
And having just read the (5, Insightful) comment right below mine, I see I completely missed that this was for business to upgrade because I obviously didn't read the actual words in TFA. Let my prior ignorant comment stand for all posterity to jeer at. But let it be known that I did see the error of my ways.
Making a claim that it could cast "as much as $2,000" sounds to me like about as useless a number as you can have--unless the point is manipulation of the uninformed consumer. If someone told you that buying a new car could cost "as much as $100,000", wouldn't that scare you from buying a car? Hey, it's true; it could cost that much. Let's ignore the fact it almost certainly won't.
Did you know a new house could cost as much as $5 million? Your lunch could cost as much $50. Your broadband throughput could be as much as 12Mbps. Sorry, I digress.
Imagine how backwards computers would be if you had to write a new kernel, window system, and libraries every time you wanted to write an application.
According to the wikis, Belize, Canada, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Philippines also use the MM/DD/YYYY format, so we're not the only country using the format.
This is impossible to do with any product now, but you'll be able to do this with Windows Server N+1 as long as all your clients are also Windows N+1, but only if you also buy Microsoft Windows Office SharePoint Enteprise Search Server X. You could try to do it with current technology, but you'd have to remove one of your arbitrarily self-imposed restrictions. I could tell you which one, but I'd be reducing my chance that anything I'm saying is relevant if I guessed wrong.
"Open sores". Freudian slip?
My ancecdotal experience...
I'm an "engineer" (what would have been called a systems administrator since the dawn of computing, but now doesn't sound elite enough) on the SharePoint team at a Fortune 500 company (not bragging, just giving an indication of the size/scope of the company). There's no doubt Microsoft positioned SharePoint as a platform for "the business", and not as a classical Enterprise-style, IT-maintained platform. I say this based on Microsoft's own literature that sells it as a way for the business user to get around their company's slow, beaurocratic IT departments.
For the most part, that's a fair criticism. And most users (at least that have come from our other platforms) do love it and for that very reason. For them, it is easy to produce impressive results on their own. Sure, professional designers and IT could produce an even more impressive, elegant, stable product, possibly even at less cost, but not in less time, assuming they even got around to doing it. But compared to the tools that most users are left with that they're able to use without IT involvement, it rocks.
Not surprisingly to IT, it's come full circle, and now the company is concerned about regulatory compliance, handling of confidential information, and the lack of administrative tools in SharePoint for very large and complicated sites. Also not surprisingly, the company has realized the only way to address this is more control and centralization of administration. This is just part of the circle-of-business, and I don't doubt once everybody has been moved to this model, and SharePoint has become the roadblock to getting work done, some new product will come along that makes it easy for them to produce results, starts out rogue, and then has to be reigned in by IT.
I do agree completely that there are not very many "guru-level" people on SharePoint. I'm certainly not one of them even after nearly a year on the platform. I also agree there's a big jump in cost from the "free" Windows SharePoint Servers (WSS) and the Enterprise-priced Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS). But there is a lot that can be done with the free product, though I'd argue that MOSS does have value and would likely be cheaper than redeveloping it from scratch.
Finally, I wonder at your lack of encounters with SharePoint implentations. If you're on the CRM side of consulting, I'm not surprised. I don't think many companies are looking at SharePoint as a CRM platform (though Microsoft no doubt markets it that way; they want SharePoint to be all things to all people). If you're truly a SharePoint consultant, then it might be because *BeginVent* Microsoft charges insane prices for SharePoint consultations and wants six weeks to produce a fill-in-the-form document saying what on site IT already knows *EndVent*.
*Movie X* was such an influential part of my childhood. You can't just take *X* hours of a series and cram it into a movie without losing everything magical about it. There's just too much compromise moving from *medium X* to the movies. And changing *minor element X* to *minor element Y* just proves that point. This is one movie I will definitely claim not to see. The graphics look pretty good though.
As much as I love (or at least loved) the Amiga, to be fair, there is a difference between 20 years of near stagnation (notice I don't say complete stagnation) with Amiga development, and 20 years of continuous development for Windows, Mac, and Linux. And while the goal with Amiga seems to be to keep it as much like the original product as possible, Windows, Mac, and (as far as I know) Linux have each had almost complete transformation since their original releases.
This argument has nothing to do with the quality, impressiveness, or relevance of what the Amiga was, but of what it is now. Legal dispute has kept the product from evolving with the market as the other operating systems have done. That's not a slam against the Amiga. Its simply the reality of where the product is.
I sincerely hope that this latest development can change all that and that the Amiga's inherent quality will let rise from the ashes, like something that, er, rises from ashes.
This was exactly my reaction. There's so much opportunity to have a computer replace the stuff that physical objects aren't good at. Why have it simulate (poorly) what real dice do so well? I've long wanted to try my hand at writing a program like this, but one that makes the un-fun parts of D&D faster, not one that makes the fun parts lame.
How about tracking initiative? How about showing the area of effect for a blast or burst when cover or concealment is in effect? How about Wizards of the Coast finally releases that awesome game table application they promised three years ago. Just kidding, I'm not that divorced from reality.
That comic strip is totally true! Ever since my coven leader taught me mind bondage, I've saved tons of money on D&D manuals.
Maybe you should tell the Fortune 500 company I work for that social networking tools should never be mistaken for a professional solution. Maybe you just mean Facebook and Twitter should never be mistaken for professional tools, and I'd agree with that to a point. But to claim that the features of social networking tools cannot be used for professional purposes sounds naïve to me at best.
Having watched a very good presentation on Google Wave (Google Faculty Summit 2009: Google Wave), I feel I finally "get it". It's not simply Twitter 2.0. It really combines email, document collaboration, and instant messaging into a single system in a way I haven't seen done before. You could use it effectively to work just like email only or to just work like instant messaging only, but you won't.
If you watch videos (product demos, interviews, training, etc) at the time the mouse first came out, you'll laugh at the detail they go into to explain what a mouse is and how to use it. We take it for granted that it's so intuitive that a two year old can figure it out. There was a time this wasn't the case. This multitouch concept can be just as powerful, useful and usable as the mouse, and I will not be surprised when it seems just as obvious as the mouse.
Other problem is that now your both hands lay on the wide touch area and you dont have a keyboard.
I can imagine three ways to address this. First way: Touch areas on each side of the keyboard. Second way: Touch area below the keyboard. Third way: Touch area both on each side and below the keyboard.
I can see this being as natural as using a mouse. Regarding precision, I think this could be at least adequately addressed by having the application adjust it's "precision scale" for the activity involved.
But what could be more clear than Alice and Bob?
It seems you've all proved the article's point. SSL still mostly misunderstood.
This is actually a clever viral marketing campaign to guage consumer feedback to 64 vs 128 bit operating systems. Slashdot users will spend so much time arguing the pros and cons that Microsoft will get 80% of their research for free.
But seriously, I find it funny that when Microsoft copies someone else and produces been-there-done-that products, everyone complains, but when they discover Microsoft is working on forward-looking technology that few if any other vendors are working on and has no (yet) apparent use, they are reamed as well.
Have we learned nothing from "X units is enough for anyone" statements?
You can't keep calling it skepticism when faced with a continual stream of evidence, that's called denial.
No, it's called faith.
she sounds hot! pics plz!
Personally, as long as Microsoft continues to take over the world, I'll refrain from nitpicking their strategy. You can call it evil, anti-competitive, heartless, offensive, confounding, or whatever, but not stupid or ineffective. Why did Ballmer not kill Windows Mobile 6.5? Because Microsoft doesn't make money by investing money in a product they don't sell, but do make money by producing an inferior product they do sell.
This is one of the major things that drove me to the iPhone. For years, I kept telling myself I would love a Microsoft "smart" handheld/mobile phone, because as a hobbiest developer I could write my own apps and have control over the workings of the device. But for years, I never did squat with that power. In the end, having a mobile phone that "just works" is far more productive than any potential to do neato things with Windows Mobile. I'm starting to finally understand why people buy Macs. No, it's not perfect, but it's imperfect in a way that's less frustrating.
That's why the new 1TB discs will have 950GB of error correction.
I had not heard about the Zimbabwean Dollar before. The Wikipedia article has a great picture of the $100 billion note and the three eggs it bought when it was released. Their financial software can't even handle the $trillion numbers involved in people's bank accounts. The countries money supply was 900 quadrillion dollars in 2008! Words can't even express how insane this is.
"For a variety of reasons some development expense [10%], some quality assurance [10%] and some business reasons [80%] Nvidia will not support GPU accelerated PhysX with Nvidia GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non-Nvidia GPUs."