You don't have to make it free, but it's legal for me to buy it and put it on my FTP for free so that other people don't have to buy it. The fact that you are selling your software with a license that says you can make unlimited copies is virtually giving it away for free. Hency why there's no point for me to buy GPL'd software since I can legally download it for free.
Although threading is popular for server based apps, for normal desktop apps threads should be sed lightly or not at all. Take an Mp3 coder for example. Sure, the MP3 encoding itself will launch a thread to update the status bar, but the real CPU hog is the encoding itself which is done in a single thread. According to Tom Pabst in this scenarion the MP3 encoding will perform slower than a non-HT proc.
Also, consider another big peformance hog, games. Although a Game Server may take advantage of HT, I don't think (and this is purely speculation based on _minimal_ 3D engine programming experience) it would be a good idea for games to use threads. Threads carry overhead, and they also can make your codebase difficult to manage.
I'm sorry, but there's a reason why I personally stick with Opera and IE (IE for IE "only" pages, and for/. just for the irony) and why I'm willing to _pay_ for well made software. Mozilla hurt Mozilla by being too little (or too much when viewing the codebase!) too late. Mozilla based browsers have improved dramatically, but IMHO they are still sub-par. Although Safari has some missing features, for an initial release it looks very promising. From what I've seen, if I ever get a Mac I may be very tempted to use Safari over Opera. Of course, Opera should then sue Apple for levereging their monopoly on PowerPC desktops and pushing Opera out of their market:-).
I come to you not as a Mac hater by any means (actually, I love Jaguar), but as someone who has to defend fact and promote objectivity.
Or alternatively if you are willing to take serious contrived tests, try the apple photoshop test script, which will leave a 1GHz powerbook outperforming the fastest pentium 4M (2.25GHz) by up to 40% in some tests.
First, these were very serious tests that where done by a third party individual who happens to be a Mac user. Second, I've seen the apple photoshop test script. It's such a narrow battary of tests that it does not reflect most users real world usage. The only reason that it performs so well (although I haven't seen it perform as well as you claim) is because of Altivec, which can be extremely beneficial in a very narrow range of applications. John Carmack even had something to say regarding Doom and how it runs faster on a 1Ghz P3 (vs a 733G4) even WITH Altivec (reference). Furthermore, my Dad has an iMac G4 and it's a fricken awesome machine and is fast enough for most everything he needs to do. But when it comes to music encoding, I can visually see a difference when compared to my meager 1.2Ghz Athlon.
I needn't bring in other real world graphic design issues such as windows inability to colour sync or high speed access to firewire and other important graphic design orientated technologies.
You needn't bring up those issues because they're not issues to be brought up with. Most PC's ship with firewire. I've had a PC with firewire and used premier for capturing/editing for about 2 years. As far as color sync there are a lot of interested threads below +5 in that discuss how uninformed this statement is - I need not repeat them.
A comparison that shows who builds faster hardware for similar prices, not who builds the best portable computer. The alienware rig is designed as a portable gaming or multimedia desktop. The intended application is going to be setting the alienware on your desk and plugging it in to play Quake or to edit a video in your home, your office, or your hotel.
If this was Best PC laptop vs. Best Apple laptop Apple would probably win. The point of the article though is speed, and when people need speed (and many people legitimately do) for a reasonable price than x86 is the way to go.
Oh, and if you had any idea who the guy was who performed the test (read: avid MAC user), you'd be less hastey about your "rigged" accusation.
Until Jaguar, well built Windows based PC's have been far more user friendly than Mac's, and far easier to upgrade. Now, Mac is taking the lead, but not by a big enough margin to warrent the up to ~300% speed gap. Apple's amazed me with two INCREDIBLE Macworld's in a row. In almost all areas, Mac's have caught up to PC's, and in many area's, surpassed them. But, the performance issue is a real one, and you can't fix a problem if you don't aknowledge it.
This is why I'm all for Apple's going x86. Now, I'm not saying that OSX should run on "any old beige box". Apple can still build their proprietary iMac's and they WILL have the EXACT SAME control over quality. The difference is, Mac's will be A) cheaper to build and B) able to keep up with technology on the hardware front.
Think about it, not much would change. Mac's employ USB1.1, USB2.0, IEEE1394a, IEEE1394b, IDE (EIDE,UATA, etc.), SCSI (2,3,UW,etc.), PCI, AGP, and a ton of other hardware standards that are the exact same as their PC counterparts. The biggest change in hardware is the microprosser, which by the way has nothing to do with the "PnP" ease of use of OSX. Sure, Mac's also have proprietary motherboards, but so do Dell's, Compaq's, and Gateway's. Once Apple get's off their legacy hardware and builds a box that can maybe even dual boot to XP, I'll buy one. I can do 80% of what I need to do on a Mac, and probably do it better than a PC. But it's the other 20% that's killing me (not just available software, but required hardware performance).
Absolutely not. I've worked with many CS grad's from IT, and they generally do not have a clue how to solve business problems with technology. I'm not saying that a MIS degree is better, but I've found that the best software developers for IT generally have degrees in EE, Economics, or an even less relevant discipline. Don't get me wrong, I've worked with some bright CS guys. The real point is that the person is bright though, because in reality the only CS that you really use is OOP, a bit of software design (software design taught in schools doesn't always apply to IT), and diagraming practices (UML, Use Cases, etc., which are generally poorly covered in most 4 year CS programs).
As far as academic rigor CS is definitely more involved than MIS (IMHO), but that doesn't mean that it applies much to the disciple of IT.
What are we talking about, CS or IT? CS is the study of computers. IT is the study of Technology when related to Business and Information Systems. Of course the two disciplines share some commonality. For example, IT requires certain aspects of CS because many IT positions require programming proficiency. However, I don't expect someone who is in IT to code up a simple OS or a basic language and compiler just as I don't expect someone in CS to design and develop a solution for a national call center's contact management.
It's very possible that the parent poster believes that NB's are made in the USA because it's very possible that his pair was. However, a larger portion is made in China.
I'll ask you the same question. MS got it's BILLIONS legally. MS got it's monopoly legally. They did NOT get it by undercutting the competition by selling software at a loss (hence the billions) and then jacking the prices up after they gained significant marketshare. So, no, this is not standard MS Monopolistic tactis.
Standard monopolistic tactis is to make strong-armed agreements with OEM's and the like that make extreme special pricing conditions for companies that don't sell the competition. This is anti-competitive, and this is what MS got slammed for in court.
Your argument's are laughable. You can logically argue all you want, or you can look at the reality - no company that resides in a country that respects international copyright laws has ever made any software and sold it for consoles for a reason - it's illegal. And no, you can't just "code your own libraries" because even then you need proprietary, copyrighted information. This is why a _hardware_ modification must be made in order to legally create software for the PS2 or XBox. Of course, this still doesn't make _selling_ it legal.
Sure there is, it's called copyright law. In order to make an XBox game you need to have the license to use certain copyrighted code in order to work with the system. So, unless you have a hardware modification that turns the XBox into something else (like a pseudo PC), than it is illegal. It's also illegal to sell a game which claims to A) be XBox compatible and B) have the XBox logo or any other XBox related designation without licensing them from Microsoft. The same, trivial, rules apply to Nintendo and Sony systems as well.
Maybe someone wants to develop XBox games (or any other sort of software, I guess) and not pay for Microsoft's expensive "services."
The point is if you want to develop on a [insert proprietary console here], you have to pay your dues. It's illegal not to. Even if you could break the commercial countermeasures, you'd still get a [legitimate] lawsuit from MS>
I'm talking about the XBox release, which I've been playing non stop for the last couple of weeks. If you have a GF4 Ti4200 or a Radeon 9500 (or higher, respectively) then you should be able to experience the graphics at similar or better detail than the XBox version.
Bzzzt... wrong. You can disable all caches, including RAM caches, and the performance hit is only noticed when you go back to pages that you've already been too. Opera is still extremely fast - there's a reason it's packaged in a 3MB binary.
Actually, he could hire about two. Salary ($60-$75K depending on location and competance) plus benefits, taxes, and other expenses would easily cost $200K for only two developers.
Actually, the parent post is more correct than you may think. To be more specific, VB.NET is a migration path to.NET, where many languges can be used. C# is not only the language that MS uses internally, it's also the language that takes full advantage of the.NET platform. Of course, many other languages, VB.NET included, will do just fine.
VB.NET and C#.NET both compile to the same intermediate bytecodes.
Actually, this needs to be more carefully worded in order to be correct. First, the IL is not bytecode. Second, VB.NET and C# both compile to the IL (Intermediate Language) in a fashion that is similar to C++ and Delphi compiling to ASM. Other than writing a simple Hello World app, the resulting IL of VB.NET and C# can differ tremendously, especially when VB.NET's "option strict" is turned off. This is because they are different languages using completely different compilers. They just compile to the same IL, which allows them share the same BCL (the.NET Framework) as well as interoporate regardless of language.
Disclaimer: I'm a "Web Application Developer", meaning, the vast majority of software I write is web-based.
In IT I think that client-server apps are antiquated for all but some very rare exceptions. Sysadmins and helpdesks are sick of dealing with version and client issues, developers are sick of wasting time testing for multiple platforms and dealing with memory leaks and other client issues, and PM's are sick of the additional testing needed which leads to the bottom line, time (money). Web Applications don't have the slick UI (yet) of a traditional software app, but every HR system, Customer Management system, and any business specific utility that I have ever seen makes sense being web based. Sure, MS Word should probably never be web based, but I'm talking about IT/IS based apps.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to make it free, but it's legal for me to buy it and put it on my FTP for free so that other people don't have to buy it. The fact that you are selling your software with a license that says you can make unlimited copies is virtually giving it away for free. Hency why there's no point for me to buy GPL'd software since I can legally download it for free.
Although threading is popular for server based apps, for normal desktop apps threads should be sed lightly or not at all. Take an Mp3 coder for example. Sure, the MP3 encoding itself will launch a thread to update the status bar, but the real CPU hog is the encoding itself which is done in a single thread. According to Tom Pabst in this scenarion the MP3 encoding will perform slower than a non-HT proc.
Also, consider another big peformance hog, games. Although a Game Server may take advantage of HT, I don't think (and this is purely speculation based on _minimal_ 3D engine programming experience) it would be a good idea for games to use threads. Threads carry overhead, and they also can make your codebase difficult to manage.
I'm sorry, but there's a reason why I personally stick with Opera and IE (IE for IE "only" pages, and for /. just for the irony) and why I'm willing to _pay_ for well made software. Mozilla hurt Mozilla by being too little (or too much when viewing the codebase!) too late. Mozilla based browsers have improved dramatically, but IMHO they are still sub-par. Although Safari has some missing features, for an initial release it looks very promising. From what I've seen, if I ever get a Mac I may be very tempted to use Safari over Opera. Of course, Opera should then sue Apple for levereging their monopoly on PowerPC desktops and pushing Opera out of their market :-).
I come to you not as a Mac hater by any means (actually, I love Jaguar), but as someone who has to defend fact and promote objectivity.
Or alternatively if you are willing to take serious contrived tests, try the apple photoshop test script, which will leave a 1GHz powerbook outperforming the fastest pentium 4M (2.25GHz) by up to 40% in some tests.
First, these were very serious tests that where done by a third party individual who happens to be a Mac user. Second, I've seen the apple photoshop test script. It's such a narrow battary of tests that it does not reflect most users real world usage. The only reason that it performs so well (although I haven't seen it perform as well as you claim) is because of Altivec, which can be extremely beneficial in a very narrow range of applications. John Carmack even had something to say regarding Doom and how it runs faster on a 1Ghz P3 (vs a 733G4) even WITH Altivec (reference). Furthermore, my Dad has an iMac G4 and it's a fricken awesome machine and is fast enough for most everything he needs to do. But when it comes to music encoding, I can visually see a difference when compared to my meager 1.2Ghz Athlon.
I needn't bring in other real world graphic design issues such as windows inability to colour sync or high speed access to firewire and other important graphic design orientated technologies.
You needn't bring up those issues because they're not issues to be brought up with. Most PC's ship with firewire. I've had a PC with firewire and used premier for capturing/editing for about 2 years. As far as color sync there are a lot of interested threads below +5 in that discuss how uninformed this statement is - I need not repeat them.
What kind of comparison is that???
A comparison that shows who builds faster hardware for similar prices, not who builds the best portable computer. The alienware rig is designed as a portable gaming or multimedia desktop. The intended application is going to be setting the alienware on your desk and plugging it in to play Quake or to edit a video in your home, your office, or your hotel.
If this was Best PC laptop vs. Best Apple laptop Apple would probably win. The point of the article though is speed, and when people need speed (and many people legitimately do) for a reasonable price than x86 is the way to go.
Oh, and if you had any idea who the guy was who performed the test (read: avid MAC user), you'd be less hastey about your "rigged" accusation.
Until Jaguar, well built Windows based PC's have been far more user friendly than Mac's, and far easier to upgrade. Now, Mac is taking the lead, but not by a big enough margin to warrent the up to ~300% speed gap. Apple's amazed me with two INCREDIBLE Macworld's in a row. In almost all areas, Mac's have caught up to PC's, and in many area's, surpassed them. But, the performance issue is a real one, and you can't fix a problem if you don't aknowledge it.
This is why I'm all for Apple's going x86. Now, I'm not saying that OSX should run on "any old beige box". Apple can still build their proprietary iMac's and they WILL have the EXACT SAME control over quality. The difference is, Mac's will be A) cheaper to build and B) able to keep up with technology on the hardware front.
Think about it, not much would change. Mac's employ USB1.1, USB2.0, IEEE1394a, IEEE1394b, IDE (EIDE,UATA, etc.), SCSI (2,3,UW,etc.), PCI, AGP, and a ton of other hardware standards that are the exact same as their PC counterparts. The biggest change in hardware is the microprosser, which by the way has nothing to do with the "PnP" ease of use of OSX. Sure, Mac's also have proprietary motherboards, but so do Dell's, Compaq's, and Gateway's. Once Apple get's off their legacy hardware and builds a box that can maybe even dual boot to XP, I'll buy one. I can do 80% of what I need to do on a Mac, and probably do it better than a PC. But it's the other 20% that's killing me (not just available software, but required hardware performance).
the truth is that IT is a subset of CS
Absolutely not. I've worked with many CS grad's from IT, and they generally do not have a clue how to solve business problems with technology. I'm not saying that a MIS degree is better, but I've found that the best software developers for IT generally have degrees in EE, Economics, or an even less relevant discipline. Don't get me wrong, I've worked with some bright CS guys. The real point is that the person is bright though, because in reality the only CS that you really use is OOP, a bit of software design (software design taught in schools doesn't always apply to IT), and diagraming practices (UML, Use Cases, etc., which are generally poorly covered in most 4 year CS programs).
As far as academic rigor CS is definitely more involved than MIS (IMHO), but that doesn't mean that it applies much to the disciple of IT.
What are we talking about, CS or IT? CS is the study of computers. IT is the study of Technology when related to Business and Information Systems. Of course the two disciplines share some commonality. For example, IT requires certain aspects of CS because many IT positions require programming proficiency. However, I don't expect someone who is in IT to code up a simple OS or a basic language and compiler just as I don't expect someone in CS to design and develop a solution for a national call center's contact management.
So, are girls not interested in CS, IT, or both?
It's very possible that the parent poster believes that NB's are made in the USA because it's very possible that his pair was. However, a larger portion is made in China.
Yes, let's harshly punish successful businesses who have _LEGALLY_ obtained monopoly status. That'll really attract future entrepeneurs to America.
Because the product is not law-breaking, it's their business practices (read: OEM agreements).
But who said that they were selling WMP9 at a loss?
Have you not followed the entire Monopoly cases?
I'll ask you the same question. MS got it's BILLIONS legally. MS got it's monopoly legally. They did NOT get it by undercutting the competition by selling software at a loss (hence the billions) and then jacking the prices up after they gained significant marketshare. So, no, this is not standard MS Monopolistic tactis.
Standard monopolistic tactis is to make strong-armed agreements with OEM's and the like that make extreme special pricing conditions for companies that don't sell the competition. This is anti-competitive, and this is what MS got slammed for in court.
Your argument's are laughable. You can logically argue all you want, or you can look at the reality - no company that resides in a country that respects international copyright laws has ever made any software and sold it for consoles for a reason - it's illegal. And no, you can't just "code your own libraries" because even then you need proprietary, copyrighted information. This is why a _hardware_ modification must be made in order to legally create software for the PS2 or XBox. Of course, this still doesn't make _selling_ it legal.
Sure there is, it's called copyright law. In order to make an XBox game you need to have the license to use certain copyrighted code in order to work with the system. So, unless you have a hardware modification that turns the XBox into something else (like a pseudo PC), than it is illegal. It's also illegal to sell a game which claims to A) be XBox compatible and B) have the XBox logo or any other XBox related designation without licensing them from Microsoft. The same, trivial, rules apply to Nintendo and Sony systems as well.
Maybe someone wants to develop XBox games (or any other sort of software, I guess) and not pay for Microsoft's expensive "services."
The point is if you want to develop on a [insert proprietary console here], you have to pay your dues. It's illegal not to. Even if you could break the commercial countermeasures, you'd still get a [legitimate] lawsuit from MS>
I'm talking about the XBox release, which I've been playing non stop for the last couple of weeks. If you have a GF4 Ti4200 or a Radeon 9500 (or higher, respectively) then you should be able to experience the graphics at similar or better detail than the XBox version.
How do you explain the crappy performace of nVidia's most recent linux drivers?
I think you answered your own question, sir.
You obviously haven't played splinter cell. Cutting edge game engine, incredible gameplay.
Of course, IIS could just not allow the connection to stay open (check the config).
Of course, when your target market is non-scalable toy computers, who cares if you software isn't scalable either.
That was intelligent.
Bzzzt... wrong. You can disable all caches, including RAM caches, and the performance hit is only noticed when you go back to pages that you've already been too. Opera is still extremely fast - there's a reason it's packaged in a 3MB binary.
Actually, he could hire about two. Salary ($60-$75K depending on location and competance) plus benefits, taxes, and other expenses would easily cost $200K for only two developers.
Wow... my professor told me people like you existed, but I didn't believe him!
Actually, the parent post is more correct than you may think. To be more specific, VB.NET is a migration path to .NET, where many languges can be used. C# is not only the language that MS uses internally, it's also the language that takes full advantage of the .NET platform. Of course, many other languages, VB.NET included, will do just fine.
.NET Framework) as well as interoporate regardless of language.
VB.NET and C#.NET both compile to the same intermediate bytecodes.
Actually, this needs to be more carefully worded in order to be correct. First, the IL is not bytecode. Second, VB.NET and C# both compile to the IL (Intermediate Language) in a fashion that is similar to C++ and Delphi compiling to ASM. Other than writing a simple Hello World app, the resulting IL of VB.NET and C# can differ tremendously, especially when VB.NET's "option strict" is turned off. This is because they are different languages using completely different compilers. They just compile to the same IL, which allows them share the same BCL (the
Disclaimer: I'm a "Web Application Developer", meaning, the vast majority of software I write is web-based.
In IT I think that client-server apps are antiquated for all but some very rare exceptions. Sysadmins and helpdesks are sick of dealing with version and client issues, developers are sick of wasting time testing for multiple platforms and dealing with memory leaks and other client issues, and PM's are sick of the additional testing needed which leads to the bottom line, time (money). Web Applications don't have the slick UI (yet) of a traditional software app, but every HR system, Customer Management system, and any business specific utility that I have ever seen makes sense being web based. Sure, MS Word should probably never be web based, but I'm talking about IT/IS based apps.