I'd have to agree with you. And since C# is submitted to the ECMA, the "cross-platform" issue will be moot (albeit it still won't be write once, run anywhere, but I'm personally not interested in that).
C# has been submitted to the ECMA. There is NO licensing issues with using C#. For example, the Mono project is able to write a full.NET runtime engine and compiler without even talking to the M$ legal department.
The difference is that a Honda is incredible engineering. Sure, the S2000 is no Porche or TT, but it's a lot cheaper too! The other Honda models run GREAT even with peak tourque being so high in RPM's - they are huge innovators in the consumer car engine business. Flash to P4, and this is a horrible analogy. The P4 was made for marketing numbers. Honda wasn't saying, "Hey, maybe if we increase the peak RPM we can advertise that our cars can handle 8000 rpm's!" It was pure engineering on Honda's part, and pure BS on Intel's part.
I love how unsubstantiated comments like this get's +4 Insightful. How is.NET a disaster?.NET has built in interop capabilities for COM. And quite frankly, a lot of us windows guys DISLIKE COM, and are very willing to rewrite on a way more elegant platform. But no one has to throw anything out..NET hasn't even been officially released yet (Beta 2 Framework, RC1 IDE), and there are already TONS of early adopters. Even Gartner (bucket of salt taken) predicts that it will give J2EE a run for it's money. Especially when considering all of the rational developers who - even if they aren't MS's best friend - see the elegance in the.NET framework and C#.
Ya, if you run in 640x480x8. And don't even think about running Mozilla or Netscape while you're at it. I ran Gnome on a RH7.0 Distro with 96megs of RAM (Pentium2M Laptop) and even that was a bit slow when running Mozilla at 1024x768x16.
You can package anything you want with your OS, as long as you don't have a monopoly
So, once you have a monopoly, you can't extend the features of your OS? Should I have to download Trumpet Winsock to connect to the Internet? Rediculous. The only problem I see is if Microsoft decides to start charging for Windows Media Player usage, etc. They also can't distribute "Office" for free (with the OS). But an Internet browser, Dial Up Networking, and a Media Player (simply a more modern "CD player")are all legitimate extensions to the OS.
Well, yeah, that was 7 years ago (Win 95 release). I'm talking about 3 year upgrade policy, and that's reasonable. Even then, we still run '98 at work (only for test stations) and it's been 4 years. So, yes, if you have some 486's you should probably be running (DOS!) Linux with NO X windowing (that would be very slow, maybe unless you had sufficient memory).
You're overreacting to my post. I'm not stating what I believe. Your points are valid, but can just as easily go the other way. I definitely don't trust a Zealous anti-[MS|ClosedSource|Whatever] just as much as I don't trust MS marketing (or any sales/marketing dept. for all that matters).
(First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.)
What's wrong with packaging a browser, media player, and messaging with their OS? Apple does the same thing - and I can tell you, it's nice to install OS X and have quicktime already installed. These are all common tools (such as Dial Up Networking) that should be packaged and yes, may replace commercial versions (Trumpet Winsock anyone?). The Internet and moreso the web is such a central part of computing (read: that's the primary reason people but PC's), it would be idiotic to NOT ship with a browser. I can still download Netscape - but I don't want to because it's slow and useless to me (the real reason it failed). The average consumer want's something to WORK, and Microsoft is responsible for that, therefore they use they're browser (what a concept - they control what they're responsible for).
Of course this got modded up on/., but you are way off the mark here. I'm not arguing Amazon's claims - I'm arguing your logic.
First, when MS talks about the "apparent" low price, they are talking about TCO. Sure, you can say that Linux has a lower TCO then MS, but MS is claiming otherwise. I've seen good studies from both sides of the zealotry, and I can say that Linux is NOT free by any means. I will agree, however, that which OS has a lower TCO (for which situation) is arguable at best. Regardless, looking at the initial price (or "upgrade" prices) is trivializing the bigger picture.
Second, You claim the purchase of a new OS almost every year. You must be kidding yourself. I bought Win95, Win98 (first edition), and Win2000. I didn't by Win95OSR2, or Win98SE, WinME, or even WinXP. I never had any problem running software with this reasonable 3 year OS upgrade path. To say that you NEED to upgrade every year with MS software is intellectually dishonest.
I agree 100%. I also liked the semi-newer "homework" videos and moreso the music. I also own the Homework "LP":). It's kinda cool for this type of stuff to come up on/., IMHO.
Yes, I mentioned this movie a month ago. It is SO important that people watch this and ask themselves, "Do I really want to live like this?" Some may say, "Well, it's just a movie, that would never REALLY happen." Then ask them if the law should ALLOW it to happen - because if it's ALLOWED to happen, there's the potential for it to REALLY happen. Nevertheless, I think my sig speaks for itself.
They really aren't criticizing.NET languages, software, or architecture.
Exactly. We are building our next generation web applications on.NET, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the so called ".NET initiative" or Hailstorm.
FYI: I run Win2K Pro and have no reason to switch in the short term. So far, there's no great reason. However, there are some nifty things. For example, my friend put 512mb of RAM in his system (since it's like $30 per 256meg stick!) and used XP's ability to "cache the OS and critical DLL's" into memory. Using his machine feels like using a PDA. You just click on something and BOOM - it's there! Also, there's the "skinning" feature... cool but frivolous. He claims that when he goes to his Win2K box that he instantly misses features from XP. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Win2K, and I look forward to upgrading sometime after SP1.
We aren't talking about NT, which is a POS of a desktop OS (and a halfway decent server OS). We're talking about 2000, which is night and day easier and more stable then NT.
I'm not sure what your problem is. I run win2K Pro with BETA software, ASP.NET, IIS, SQL Server, multiple IE windows, Opera, Mozilla 0.9.5, and Netscape 6.1 (ya, I actually test my web apps on non-IE browsers), with BETA visual studio.net (VERY buggy), Cold Fusion Application server, all at the same time on a PIII500 w/256megs of RAM. Oh, and I play half-life after 5:00 (with half of that crap running)! I've only crashed the box a couple of times due to crappy OpenGL support for ATI when playing half-life. However, during WORK time, I've never had to take a 5+ minute brake due to an OS problem - I just work, and it works. All of my friends testing XP are saying that it's more stable and faster.
I'm no MS zealot but I know my facts. I'm sorry that your machine is so unstable.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to agree with you. And since C# is submitted to the ECMA, the "cross-platform" issue will be moot (albeit it still won't be write once, run anywhere, but I'm personally not interested in that).
C# has been submitted to the ECMA. There is NO licensing issues with using C#. For example, the Mono project is able to write a full .NET runtime engine and compiler without even talking to the M$ legal department.
In King County (WA) I believe it's 8.8% now.
... You mean communists.
Yes, but he said that he's an English teacher. He's probably no making much more then a 1 yr. Sysadmin.
Just like the largest innovators of 3D gaming from idSoftware... oh wait... highschool degrees.
The difference is that a Honda is incredible engineering. Sure, the S2000 is no Porche or TT, but it's a lot cheaper too! The other Honda models run GREAT even with peak tourque being so high in RPM's - they are huge innovators in the consumer car engine business. Flash to P4, and this is a horrible analogy. The P4 was made for marketing numbers. Honda wasn't saying, "Hey, maybe if we increase the peak RPM we can advertise that our cars can handle 8000 rpm's!" It was pure engineering on Honda's part, and pure BS on Intel's part.
Its .NET stuff is a disaster.
.NET a disaster? .NET has built in interop capabilities for COM. And quite frankly, a lot of us windows guys DISLIKE COM, and are very willing to rewrite on a way more elegant platform. But no one has to throw anything out. .NET hasn't even been officially released yet (Beta 2 Framework, RC1 IDE), and there are already TONS of early adopters. Even Gartner (bucket of salt taken) predicts that it will give J2EE a run for it's money. Especially when considering all of the rational developers who - even if they aren't MS's best friend - see the elegance in the .NET framework and C#.
I love how unsubstantiated comments like this get's +4 Insightful. How is
Ya, if you run in 640x480x8. And don't even think about running Mozilla or Netscape while you're at it. I ran Gnome on a RH7.0 Distro with 96megs of RAM (Pentium2M Laptop) and even that was a bit slow when running Mozilla at 1024x768x16.
You can package anything you want with your OS, as long as you don't have a monopoly
So, once you have a monopoly, you can't extend the features of your OS? Should I have to download Trumpet Winsock to connect to the Internet? Rediculous. The only problem I see is if Microsoft decides to start charging for Windows Media Player usage, etc. They also can't distribute "Office" for free (with the OS). But an Internet browser, Dial Up Networking, and a Media Player (simply a more modern "CD player")are all legitimate extensions to the OS.
Well, yeah, that was 7 years ago (Win 95 release). I'm talking about 3 year upgrade policy, and that's reasonable. Even then, we still run '98 at work (only for test stations) and it's been 4 years. So, yes, if you have some 486's you should probably be running (DOS!) Linux with NO X windowing (that would be very slow, maybe unless you had sufficient memory).
You're overreacting to my post. I'm not stating what I believe. Your points are valid, but can just as easily go the other way. I definitely don't trust a Zealous anti-[MS|ClosedSource|Whatever] just as much as I don't trust MS marketing (or any sales/marketing dept. for all that matters).
(First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.)
What's wrong with packaging a browser, media player, and messaging with their OS? Apple does the same thing - and I can tell you, it's nice to install OS X and have quicktime already installed. These are all common tools (such as Dial Up Networking) that should be packaged and yes, may replace commercial versions (Trumpet Winsock anyone?). The Internet and moreso the web is such a central part of computing (read: that's the primary reason people but PC's), it would be idiotic to NOT ship with a browser. I can still download Netscape - but I don't want to because it's slow and useless to me (the real reason it failed). The average consumer want's something to WORK, and Microsoft is responsible for that, therefore they use they're browser (what a concept - they control what they're responsible for).
Of course this got modded up on /., but you are way off the mark here. I'm not arguing Amazon's claims - I'm arguing your logic.
First, when MS talks about the "apparent" low price, they are talking about TCO. Sure, you can say that Linux has a lower TCO then MS, but MS is claiming otherwise. I've seen good studies from both sides of the zealotry, and I can say that Linux is NOT free by any means. I will agree, however, that which OS has a lower TCO (for which situation) is arguable at best. Regardless, looking at the initial price (or "upgrade" prices) is trivializing the bigger picture.
Second, You claim the purchase of a new OS almost every year. You must be kidding yourself. I bought Win95, Win98 (first edition), and Win2000. I didn't by Win95OSR2, or Win98SE, WinME, or even WinXP. I never had any problem running software with this reasonable 3 year OS upgrade path. To say that you NEED to upgrade every year with MS software is intellectually dishonest.
I agree 100%. I also liked the semi-newer "homework" videos and moreso the music. I also own the Homework "LP" :). It's kinda cool for this type of stuff to come up on /., IMHO.
We are a country that consists almost entirely of aliens...
:-(.
I know - every day it seems like Corporate America is getting more and MORE managers and less of the rest of us
Yes, I mentioned this movie a month ago. It is SO important that people watch this and ask themselves, "Do I really want to live like this?" Some may say, "Well, it's just a movie, that would never REALLY happen." Then ask them if the law should ALLOW it to happen - because if it's ALLOWED to happen, there's the potential for it to REALLY happen. Nevertheless, I think my sig speaks for itself.
He said it's in the "tweak-xp" utility of all places.
They really aren't criticizing .NET languages, software, or architecture.
.NET, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the so called ".NET initiative" or Hailstorm.
Exactly. We are building our next generation web applications on
FYI: I run Win2K Pro and have no reason to switch in the short term. So far, there's no great reason. However, there are some nifty things. For example, my friend put 512mb of RAM in his system (since it's like $30 per 256meg stick!) and used XP's ability to "cache the OS and critical DLL's" into memory. Using his machine feels like using a PDA. You just click on something and BOOM - it's there! Also, there's the "skinning" feature... cool but frivolous. He claims that when he goes to his Win2K box that he instantly misses features from XP. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Win2K, and I look forward to upgrading sometime after SP1.
... Except that OEM's don't have the activation code.
Not only that, but they forgot to include the educational discount that the students could get for Office XP.
You don't need a MCS* to use Windows. He's talking about end users. Please stick to the issue.
We aren't talking about NT, which is a POS of a desktop OS (and a halfway decent server OS). We're talking about 2000, which is night and day easier and more stable then NT.
I'm not sure what your problem is. I run win2K Pro with BETA software, ASP.NET, IIS, SQL Server, multiple IE windows, Opera, Mozilla 0.9.5, and Netscape 6.1 (ya, I actually test my web apps on non-IE browsers), with BETA visual studio.net (VERY buggy), Cold Fusion Application server, all at the same time on a PIII500 w/256megs of RAM. Oh, and I play half-life after 5:00 (with half of that crap running)! I've only crashed the box a couple of times due to crappy OpenGL support for ATI when playing half-life. However, during WORK time, I've never had to take a 5+ minute brake due to an OS problem - I just work, and it works. All of my friends testing XP are saying that it's more stable and faster.
I'm no MS zealot but I know my facts. I'm sorry that your machine is so unstable.