It wasn't 175, it was 120MB. Digital Research LS120 drive thingy.
I think it didn't catch because (IIRC) the media was a tad expensive at the time. And of course, no major vendor jumped on it. I think Zeos (anyone remember Zeos? Yay!) was the only one that offered it as an option on some of their high-end 486 mofo towers.
As long as they *provide* the pen drive or similar device, *and* place an easily accessible USB or FireWire port on the front of the chassis. If they're going to remove the floppy and force me to reach around the damn box then it probably won't work.
And I really don't think a CDR/CDRW is yet the answer to storage, unless UDF is standardized enough (as in supported at the OS level).
Re:As a friend once remarked
on
Sim-Dud?
·
· Score: 1
Where is your sig from? Sounds like something I'd enjoy reading.
I think it's a quote from "Necromancy For Beginners: How To Banish Microsoft", by LinuxMystic.
Or a degree. I feel, and have proven, that I was capable of doing exactly what I described above after completing my degree program.
Fair enough, assuming you prove it. But then again, I'm not hiring you.
A CS degree tells me that you have a solid understanding of the concepts of computer science and mathematics, as well as some understanding of the related EE and physics concepts. It also implies that you have some experience writing code in at least one language and probably several. You also understand how languages are designed and supposed to work, as well as where they are likely to go wrong. You have a good idea of many common programming errors because you both committed them yourself and were shown examples by your instructors
That may be true, but are you saying that self-taught developers don't have those same skills and capabilities?
If you regard a college degree as so useless, you either went to a bad school, or you need to get a degree yourself so you can appreciate their usefulness
I don't regard a degree as useless, I didn't go t a "bad school" (you're so 1337!) and I don't have a degree. I also don't happen to need one. You have one, so you think they're neat. More power to you. You are not, however, the one doing the hiring. At least not yet. And in the end, that's what counts - whether you think it's fair or not.
I beg to differ. A person with a BSCS should have a good enough understanding of the fundamentals of programming and debugging "in the large" to track down and fix a problem in any sized program
Nope, sorry. That comes with experience. Real world experience. A school degree only tells me that you can tie your shoes and that you'll probably manage to get up in the mornings and come to work.
I don't care if you have all the theory in the world - if you can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk, your degree is useless.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U so original! U make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U funny man! I like ur jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow... my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip u just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! U so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone will even probably mod u as funny to show how funny u really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says u! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about Microsoft certified engineers! Get it?...certified...engineers... HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to MCSEs... yes, how they are 'certified' by 'Microsoft'... HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! "I dont know about u guys", that's priceless. "FUNNY." Gold. Just pure gold. How do u do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then u see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time u even got close to being certified in anything and so wittily remarked about it? Had u been certified in the first place this wouldn't actually happen and hence ur joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of u tying in 'Microsoft certified' with 'engineer' had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet u were the funny man in high school 2. Wow. U still got it!
[Clever Manniacal Funny Post, v 2.03u]
[Download the source]
The review is interesting but it's been a while since I've seen such a glaring example of bad spelling and grammar actually make it as a live article in a high-traffic website dedicated to technical stuff.
Steve Gibson is on crack. Never mind his "the end is near, fear raw sockets" rant designed as a PR stunt, his recommendation of writing Windows applications in assembler (fer fuck's sake) is supremely stupid, unless you have nothing better to do, like, oh, be productive.
Assembler has a place, but not in writing the GUI portions of an app. Otherwise, since open source is so 1337, wouldn't everything (the Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, Apache, etc. etc) be written in assembler? It would be 6 years late, but man, think of the thightness!
I was being a bit facetious there. My primary home desktop box has 1GB of RAM, so I'm not really worried about using 24MB to allow Mozilla to run faster.
The problem is that Mozilla needs to be cross-platform so it has to create *everything* from scratch. Every control is owner-drawn and created from thin air. The whole socket implementation is less than ideal (for Windows at least). I understand why it is designed this way, and I think it's impressive that the Mozilla team managed to pull it off. But I also think it's a shame, because it is a very good browser. But the load times are unacceptable, at least for 90% of people out there (and not many can spare 24MB of RAM).
In fact, for a while there when the first few betas were being released I thought about creating a version that used the native Windows controls and a better socket implementation and simply "plugged in" the Gecko engine. Now *that* would be a rockin' browser. I wish I had time for something like that. It would definitely give IE a run for its money.
Actually, lots of windows tools use the Html parser
Yes, they do. I'm not saying the parser is used exclusively by the browser.
I'm pretty sure that Explorer (the local file browsing thingy) uses it for the "web content" in folders
Again, a "feature" that, IMO, is stupid and can be turned off. Indeed, if you turn it off you'll see that the window hierarchy in an Explorer window changes. The IE "shell view" window disappears completely and mshtml.dll is unmapped from the explorer process.
And lots of programs embed IE for one reason or another.
The point is, IE is loaded with the shell, not with the operating system itself. You can use an alternative shell, and watch in wonder as IE performs at exactly the same speed. So its responsiveness is not tied to being loaded through some evil, hidden OS hook. It's just fast.
You're even entitled to call your own dubious opinion a non-judgemental fact, so please don't feel obligated to "excuse" yourself for it (I was certainly not asking for your apology).
Well, thanks. No apology given, I was merely being sarcastic. Sorry you missed that. Oops, there I go again, being apologetic.
Bungi, I think you're on to something [...]
Nice try. But you're misrepresenting what I said - I don't propose that software developers do away with their egos, and I'm certainly not equating the use of titles with egos. I don't see the connection between ego and the requirement to have a title...?
My original point was that I think the FreeBSD folks are doing it wrong. True, Linux is also a dictatorship, but it's a different approach. And I think it works better.
You're far too stuck on the explorer.exe shell. Windows is more than just an executable.
And I think you don't know what you're talking about. Of course Windows is "more than just an executable", but the level of IE integration within the OS begins and ends with the shell. If you don't load the shell, IE is nowhere to be found. If you don't believe me, try it. Get a professional profiler and a tool (www.sysinternals.com) that can look at the working set of a process, including mapped libraries. Then boot Windows with an alternative shell, like Blackbox or Geoshell.
Tell me honestly that you can remove all.DLL files related to Internet Explorer and still have a functional operating system.
I suppose you're basing this statement on the court case? Because it has no technical merit whatsoever. Microsoft does not consider the OS to be separate from the shell (which is unfortunate, but still) and that's what eventually did them in. But that doesn't mean that you can't get rid of the shell. These DLLs you mention, do you know which ones merely ship with IE and which are actually an integral part of the browser?
Do try Windows XP before you make authoritative comments regarding things like Active Desktop, Internet Explorer, and integration.
I don't use XP because I don't like it, but if *you* are going to make authoritative statements regarding XP and IE, do try this little experiment I mentioned.
Nope. In Windows 2000 I see multiple separate instances of IEXPLORE.EXE. Each one goes away when I close their respective windows. As expected.
Perhaps that has something to do with Active Desktop, a "feature" that I don't like and always turn off.
In any case, load times are the same.
This is because the whole thing is wrapped up in explorer.exe, which is the desktop shell process, which is loaded with the OS.
Use another shell, and try your experiment. Then tell me IE loads any slower (or Mozilla is faster). Unless "wrapped up" means something I'm misunderstanding, here.
Well, explorer shell = IE. It's handled a bit differently, but the engine is still loaded.
I don't think so. The shell and IE use some shared components that are loaded with the shell itself (the Windows common controls). Unless you have Active Desktop enabled (and I don't), the HTML parsing engine is not yet loaded when the shell itself initializes. And I know that because I've profiled it.
IE is basically three things: the common controls, the HTML parsing engine and a few shell extensions (which you can turn off). The EXE is just a stub.
Now, some people consider the whole common controls thing to one of the Evil Monopolistic Practices, when it really is an excellent alternative to having 18 different "widget" sets to choose from and having two thirds of them double over and die because glibc happens to be an older (or newer) version.
In fact, if you've ever run an alternative shell you'll see why this "loads with the OS" is just FUD, because IE runs at the same speed. And no other process in the entire system uses the HTML parser.
I understand "loads with the OS" to be something like a WDM driver, a kernel-space service or something like that. But that's just me.
Open a new window, which loads the same page (5 - 10 seconds, disk grinding like anything)
Sorry, I'm just a lowly Windows user. Bear with me here. When you say "local page" do you mean a page served off of IIS in your local machine? Or what?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually some BIOS can boot from USB mass storage devices today, though it's not very common.
I think it didn't catch because (IIRC) the media was a tad expensive at the time. And of course, no major vendor jumped on it. I think Zeos (anyone remember Zeos? Yay!) was the only one that offered it as an option on some of their high-end 486 mofo towers.
Gah, I'm having PC Magazine flashbacks now.
And I really don't think a CDR/CDRW is yet the answer to storage, unless UDF is standardized enough (as in supported at the OS level).
I think it's a quote from "Necromancy For Beginners: How To Banish Microsoft", by LinuxMystic.
But I may be wrong.
Have you emailed Strong Bad yet?
Fair enough, assuming you prove it. But then again, I'm not hiring you.
A CS degree tells me that you have a solid understanding of the concepts of computer science and mathematics, as well as some understanding of the related EE and physics concepts. It also implies that you have some experience writing code in at least one language and probably several. You also understand how languages are designed and supposed to work, as well as where they are likely to go wrong. You have a good idea of many common programming errors because you both committed them yourself and were shown examples by your instructors
That may be true, but are you saying that self-taught developers don't have those same skills and capabilities?
If you regard a college degree as so useless, you either went to a bad school, or you need to get a degree yourself so you can appreciate their usefulness
I don't regard a degree as useless, I didn't go t a "bad school" (you're so 1337!) and I don't have a degree. I also don't happen to need one. You have one, so you think they're neat. More power to you. You are not, however, the one doing the hiring. At least not yet. And in the end, that's what counts - whether you think it's fair or not.
Nope, sorry. That comes with experience. Real world experience. A school degree only tells me that you can tie your shoes and that you'll probably manage to get up in the mornings and come to work.
I don't care if you have all the theory in the world - if you can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk, your degree is useless.
Oh, sorry. For a moment there I read "proctologist". Um... what's this certification for again?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U so original! U make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U funny man! I like ur jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow... my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip u just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! U so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone will even probably mod u as funny to show how funny u really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says u! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about Microsoft certified engineers! Get it? ...certified...engineers... HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to MCSEs... yes, how they are 'certified' by 'Microsoft'... HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! "I dont know about u guys", that's priceless. "FUNNY." Gold. Just pure gold. How do u do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then u see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time u even got close to being certified in anything and so wittily remarked about it? Had u been certified in the first place this wouldn't actually happen and hence ur joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of u tying in 'Microsoft certified' with 'engineer' had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! U funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet u were the funny man in high school 2. Wow. U still got it!
[Clever Manniacal Funny Post, v 2.03u]
[Download the source]
Indeed, they look almost exactly the same. It's uncanny!
Only if you're willing to puke afterwards so that others can take a look at it and it remains "free as in cake".
I let other people do it for me =)
It's not 100% accurate, and some ads do get through. But it's good enough. Doubleclick can only throw so many servers out there.
And the number of false positives I've come across is exactly 1 (some canadian domain), after more than two years of doing this.
I think that should be:
Slashdot
But that's just me.
The review is interesting but it's been a while since I've seen such a glaring example of bad spelling and grammar actually make it as a live article in a high-traffic website dedicated to technical stuff.
Assembler has a place, but not in writing the GUI portions of an app. Otherwise, since open source is so 1337, wouldn't everything (the Linux kernel, KDE, GNOME, Apache, etc. etc) be written in assembler? It would be 6 years late, but man, think of the thightness!
The problem is that Mozilla needs to be cross-platform so it has to create *everything* from scratch. Every control is owner-drawn and created from thin air. The whole socket implementation is less than ideal (for Windows at least). I understand why it is designed this way, and I think it's impressive that the Mozilla team managed to pull it off. But I also think it's a shame, because it is a very good browser. But the load times are unacceptable, at least for 90% of people out there (and not many can spare 24MB of RAM).
In fact, for a while there when the first few betas were being released I thought about creating a version that used the native Windows controls and a better socket implementation and simply "plugged in" the Gecko engine. Now *that* would be a rockin' browser. I wish I had time for something like that. It would definitely give IE a run for its money.
Yes, they do. I'm not saying the parser is used exclusively by the browser.
I'm pretty sure that Explorer (the local file browsing thingy) uses it for the "web content" in folders
Again, a "feature" that, IMO, is stupid and can be turned off. Indeed, if you turn it off you'll see that the window hierarchy in an Explorer window changes. The IE "shell view" window disappears completely and mshtml.dll is unmapped from the explorer process.
And lots of programs embed IE for one reason or another.
The point is, IE is loaded with the shell, not with the operating system itself. You can use an alternative shell, and watch in wonder as IE performs at exactly the same speed. So its responsiveness is not tied to being loaded through some evil, hidden OS hook. It's just fast.
Well, thanks. No apology given, I was merely being sarcastic. Sorry you missed that. Oops, there I go again, being apologetic.
Bungi, I think you're on to something [...]
Nice try. But you're misrepresenting what I said - I don't propose that software developers do away with their egos, and I'm certainly not equating the use of titles with egos. I don't see the connection between ego and the requirement to have a title...?
My original point was that I think the FreeBSD folks are doing it wrong. True, Linux is also a dictatorship, but it's a different approach. And I think it works better.
And I think you don't know what you're talking about. Of course Windows is "more than just an executable", but the level of IE integration within the OS begins and ends with the shell. If you don't load the shell, IE is nowhere to be found. If you don't believe me, try it. Get a professional profiler and a tool (www.sysinternals.com) that can look at the working set of a process, including mapped libraries. Then boot Windows with an alternative shell, like Blackbox or Geoshell.
Tell me honestly that you can remove all .DLL files related to Internet Explorer and still have a functional operating system.
I suppose you're basing this statement on the court case? Because it has no technical merit whatsoever. Microsoft does not consider the OS to be separate from the shell (which is unfortunate, but still) and that's what eventually did them in. But that doesn't mean that you can't get rid of the shell. These DLLs you mention, do you know which ones merely ship with IE and which are actually an integral part of the browser?
Do try Windows XP before you make authoritative comments regarding things like Active Desktop, Internet Explorer, and integration.
I don't use XP because I don't like it, but if *you* are going to make authoritative statements regarding XP and IE, do try this little experiment I mentioned.
Windoz
Nope. In Windows 2000 I see multiple separate instances of IEXPLORE.EXE. Each one goes away when I close their respective windows. As expected.
Perhaps that has something to do with Active Desktop, a "feature" that I don't like and always turn off.
In any case, load times are the same.
This is because the whole thing is wrapped up in explorer.exe, which is the desktop shell process, which is loaded with the OS.
Use another shell, and try your experiment. Then tell me IE loads any slower (or Mozilla is faster). Unless "wrapped up" means something I'm misunderstanding, here.
Quick, yes. And only 24MB of memory consumed!
Who the heck said I like Slashdot??
I don't think so. The shell and IE use some shared components that are loaded with the shell itself (the Windows common controls). Unless you have Active Desktop enabled (and I don't), the HTML parsing engine is not yet loaded when the shell itself initializes. And I know that because I've profiled it.
IE is basically three things: the common controls, the HTML parsing engine and a few shell extensions (which you can turn off). The EXE is just a stub.
Now, some people consider the whole common controls thing to one of the Evil Monopolistic Practices, when it really is an excellent alternative to having 18 different "widget" sets to choose from and having two thirds of them double over and die because glibc happens to be an older (or newer) version.
In fact, if you've ever run an alternative shell you'll see why this "loads with the OS" is just FUD, because IE runs at the same speed. And no other process in the entire system uses the HTML parser.
I understand "loads with the OS" to be something like a WDM driver, a kernel-space service or something like that. But that's just me.
Sorry, I'm just a lowly Windows user. Bear with me here. When you say "local page" do you mean a page served off of IIS in your local machine? Or what?