Having upgraded from almost every Microsoft OS going back to DOS 1.1, I can say that XP to Vista was the most hassle by far, for the least amount of improvement, at least in terms of my needs and interests. There was no feature or improvement in Vista that I cared about, and lots and lots of things that were worse.
I like XP, although I run Linux full-time at home. I still would have no reason or interest in updating it, and since it's obvious that MS has no intention of offering me anything that would actually improve my computer experience (I don't need the security improvements and I think the new UI is ugly, just like everything else since Win2k has been). Microsoft simply has nothing to offer me any more, so I have simply stopped using their products. If XP were still the currently maintained OS, it's likely I would still be using it, at least on some machines, but since they've given it the death sentence, I figure I might as well cut my ties now. Make a clean break. I'm not missing anything, except the ability to run certain games.
Why does every user need two operating systems? That seems awfully wasteful.
You don't need two OSs. However, even Microsoft has realized the only way they can sell a new OS is to bundle the old OS with it.
Here it is 2009 and Microsoft's biggest competitor is their own OS from 2001. How's that for innovation. The better part of a decade and nothing to show for it.
But you're going to have to deal with those people anyway. You might as well get the people who can help themselves out of the way so you have more time to explain what the "Any Key" is.
I started with Linux around RedHat 4.something. I'd subscribed to cable internet in 1998 and needed a better way to share the connection across the network. I took an old Compaq Presario 200MHz Pentium Pro machine and installed Linux on it and used IP Masquerading so all my machines on the network could share the connection. It wasn't until later that I heard that getting Linux to work on Compaqs was considered very difficult. I think I got lucky.
Anyhow, the machine ran quietly under the shelf for months, to the point where I even forgot it was there. I didn't start using Linux on the desktop until around 2005, and have been using it almost exclusively since 2007. Yes, there are plenty of hassles, stupid problems and other annoyances, but after using Microsoft products for more than 25 years (I even used DOS 1.1 briefly), I know I'm definitely not worse off in the long run, and I'm not subject to the utter arrogance and contempt with which Microsoft treats its customers.
When something doesn't work in Linux, it might be to misconfiguration on my part, incompetence on the developers' part, lack of documentation by a hardware manufacturer, sabotage of standards by Microsoft or some other company, or any of a number of reasons. However, it is never because the person who wrote the software is trying to lock me in, restrict me, force me to pay money for things I don't want or need, or maintain their monopoly and avoid competition. That knowledge alone makes the inconveniences, hassles and difficulties I experience with Linux far less burdensome than when it happens with Microsoft.
The other thing people tend to leave out is that the U.S.P.S. is required, by law, to deliver any first-class-sized letter sent from one address in U.S. to another for the price of a first-class stamp, which is around 43c right now. There is no other organization in the world, be it a private company or a government-run one that has that kind of mandate and does a good job of it (overall) for the same price like the U.S.P.S. does. Is there room for improvement? Of course, but in general, there are very few things our Federal Government does well, but I'd have to consider the Post Office one of them.
For a serious and hard-core server product I don't think it's a problem either. I would see the Exchange product as being a server rather than something you install on the server. It's going to be on a dedicated system and it makes sense for MS to restrict to one version of Windows for the highest robustness. This isn't just some commodity component that is installed on your desktop.
However, the initial comment is ironic given that practically every non-trivial Microsoft app ever written hooks into the OS at a level most people would consider unreasonable. In fact, that's how Microsoft gained and maintained their edge in the first place as has been well documented.
Given the level of employee you would need to administer Exchange do you really think that's an issue? We're not talking about regular IT guys who can only successfully replace a mouse two falls out of three. You're already looking at training for the new Exchange. How much different can Server 2008 be from Server 2003? Anything relevant to the OS required to run Exchange 2010 would logically be covered by the training for Exchange 2010 itself.
If you want what Microsoft offers, you have to play by their rules. If the product is good and the rules are not onerous, then there's no problem. Proprietary software, despite its drawbacks, has been a useful and successful means for delivering value for over 50 years.
On the other hand, if the product is lacking and/or the rules are onerous, then you need to go with another vendor.
As much as I love a chance to bash Microsoft, I really don't see this as being an "onerous" requirement, especially since it probably helps the poor schmoes who have to write and maintain the code (although that would certainly have been much more compelling when the likes of Windows 9x was the OS no longer being supported), which hopefully means more stable and robust software.
If you are looking at the expense and effort to use Exchange, I imagine dropping another thousand (or whatever a Windows Server license costs these days) to upgrade the OS is pocket change in comparison to the Exchange licensing and dedicated hardware and support personnel you need to run the thing. We're not talking Office or IE here... or even SQL Server.
I recently acquired a nice used laptop that my employer was liquidating and gave it to my wife, giving her old lappy to the kids. However, I had been neglectful about putting anti-virus on it and it got infected with something. Windows Update wouldn't work and I discovered the hosts file had been hacked. Definite infection! My 11-year-old daughter suggested we install Linux, so I did, and now the kids are learning how to use it (which for what they do, isn't much different from Windows).
So at my house, it's the year of Linux. Of course, the kids also have a couple of old Windows desktops for games.
Why would the Bush DOJ want Stevens to lose for political reason?
Maybe they realized that Stevens was so bad he even made the Republicans look worse. I'm a supporter of Bush, but thought Stevens represented everything bad about Washington and nothing good. Of course, I feel that way about almost every one Congress, especially the Senate, regardless of party.
You're definitely on to something there. It's just like when going to give blood. The little prick device they use to extract a couple drops of blood to test the hemoglobin bothers me a lot more than the big old phlebotomy needle, even though the needle hurts more. I realize it's a psychological thing, perhaps having to do with the suddenness of the finger prick vs. gently inserting a needle.
In any event, I definitely know that while maybe I can't eliminate pain with attitude, I _can_ make it a whole lot worse.
I recently watched John Carpenters "The Thing", and despite it being a cutting-edge science-fiction/horror movie, Carpenter noted in the commentary track that the scene with the characters using a knife to make a cut to extract blood bothered many people more than the hard-core blood-n-guts effects. One element is that cutting your finger is realistic and everyone's experienced it, as opposed to being eaten by a polymorphic alien, which is a somewhat less common occurrence. But another element is, I think, the same reason the pin-prick dealie bothers me more than many things that actually cause more pain.
Now come on, let's not exaggerate. Galileo lived in Italy. I lived in Virginia at the time (and still do).
BTW, did you know Galileo almost discovered Neptune? He saw it, and recorded it, but as it was transitioning to retrograde movement and thus wasn't moving relative to the stars, he thought it was another star.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll send you the instructions as soon as I can get someone to help me lift the monitor over to the fax machine.
Having upgraded from almost every Microsoft OS going back to DOS 1.1, I can say that XP to Vista was the most hassle by far, for the least amount of improvement, at least in terms of my needs and interests. There was no feature or improvement in Vista that I cared about, and lots and lots of things that were worse.
I like XP, although I run Linux full-time at home. I still would have no reason or interest in updating it, and since it's obvious that MS has no intention of offering me anything that would actually improve my computer experience (I don't need the security improvements and I think the new UI is ugly, just like everything else since Win2k has been). Microsoft simply has nothing to offer me any more, so I have simply stopped using their products. If XP were still the currently maintained OS, it's likely I would still be using it, at least on some machines, but since they've given it the death sentence, I figure I might as well cut my ties now. Make a clean break. I'm not missing anything, except the ability to run certain games.
Why does every user need two operating systems? That seems awfully wasteful.
You don't need two OSs. However, even Microsoft has realized the only way they can sell a new OS is to bundle the old OS with it.
Here it is 2009 and Microsoft's biggest competitor is their own OS from 2001. How's that for innovation. The better part of a decade and nothing to show for it.
But you're going to have to deal with those people anyway. You might as well get the people who can help themselves out of the way so you have more time to explain what the "Any Key" is.
Don't start busting on Obama. Didn't you get the memo? He won. It's his country to do with as he feels.
Yeah, but it seems it will on the higher end versions... in others words for the customers least likely to actually need it.
I started with Linux around RedHat 4.something. I'd subscribed to cable internet in 1998 and needed a better way to share the connection across the network. I took an old Compaq Presario 200MHz Pentium Pro machine and installed Linux on it and used IP Masquerading so all my machines on the network could share the connection. It wasn't until later that I heard that getting Linux to work on Compaqs was considered very difficult. I think I got lucky.
Anyhow, the machine ran quietly under the shelf for months, to the point where I even forgot it was there. I didn't start using Linux on the desktop until around 2005, and have been using it almost exclusively since 2007. Yes, there are plenty of hassles, stupid problems and other annoyances, but after using Microsoft products for more than 25 years (I even used DOS 1.1 briefly), I know I'm definitely not worse off in the long run, and I'm not subject to the utter arrogance and contempt with which Microsoft treats its customers.
When something doesn't work in Linux, it might be to misconfiguration on my part, incompetence on the developers' part, lack of documentation by a hardware manufacturer, sabotage of standards by Microsoft or some other company, or any of a number of reasons. However, it is never because the person who wrote the software is trying to lock me in, restrict me, force me to pay money for things I don't want or need, or maintain their monopoly and avoid competition. That knowledge alone makes the inconveniences, hassles and difficulties I experience with Linux far less burdensome than when it happens with Microsoft.
The other thing people tend to leave out is that the U.S.P.S. is required, by law, to deliver any first-class-sized letter sent from one address in U.S. to another for the price of a first-class stamp, which is around 43c right now. There is no other organization in the world, be it a private company or a government-run one that has that kind of mandate and does a good job of it (overall) for the same price like the U.S.P.S. does. Is there room for improvement? Of course, but in general, there are very few things our Federal Government does well, but I'd have to consider the Post Office one of them.
Just don't forget the pancake breakfasts. That's the best part.
Carefully, yes. Tightly, no. Those two characteristics are very orthogonal.
"tightly scripted Heroes-type story"
Wow. So you're saying something is almost but not quite entirely unlike Heroes...
That hadn't occurred to me, but I bet it would be better than Java.
A philosophical question, then: what's coming first - Exchange running in Emacs, or Emacs running in Exchange?
My money would be on Emacs running a virtual machine on which you could install Exchange.
For a serious and hard-core server product I don't think it's a problem either. I would see the Exchange product as being a server rather than something you install on the server. It's going to be on a dedicated system and it makes sense for MS to restrict to one version of Windows for the highest robustness. This isn't just some commodity component that is installed on your desktop.
However, the initial comment is ironic given that practically every non-trivial Microsoft app ever written hooks into the OS at a level most people would consider unreasonable. In fact, that's how Microsoft gained and maintained their edge in the first place as has been well documented.
Given the level of employee you would need to administer Exchange do you really think that's an issue? We're not talking about regular IT guys who can only successfully replace a mouse two falls out of three. You're already looking at training for the new Exchange. How much different can Server 2008 be from Server 2003? Anything relevant to the OS required to run Exchange 2010 would logically be covered by the training for Exchange 2010 itself.
But it's healthier energy! ;-)
"HSM" sounds like a character from a conspiracy-oriented TV show, like a cross between "HRG" and "CSM".
If you want what Microsoft offers, you have to play by their rules. If the product is good and the rules are not onerous, then there's no problem. Proprietary software, despite its drawbacks, has been a useful and successful means for delivering value for over 50 years.
On the other hand, if the product is lacking and/or the rules are onerous, then you need to go with another vendor.
As much as I love a chance to bash Microsoft, I really don't see this as being an "onerous" requirement, especially since it probably helps the poor schmoes who have to write and maintain the code (although that would certainly have been much more compelling when the likes of Windows 9x was the OS no longer being supported), which hopefully means more stable and robust software.
If you are looking at the expense and effort to use Exchange, I imagine dropping another thousand (or whatever a Windows Server license costs these days) to upgrade the OS is pocket change in comparison to the Exchange licensing and dedicated hardware and support personnel you need to run the thing. We're not talking Office or IE here... or even SQL Server.
Am I missing something, or has Exchange started to gobble up OS functions now?
You must be new to Microsoft products.
I recently acquired a nice used laptop that my employer was liquidating and gave it to my wife, giving her old lappy to the kids. However, I had been neglectful about putting anti-virus on it and it got infected with something. Windows Update wouldn't work and I discovered the hosts file had been hacked. Definite infection! My 11-year-old daughter suggested we install Linux, so I did, and now the kids are learning how to use it (which for what they do, isn't much different from Windows).
So at my house, it's the year of Linux. Of course, the kids also have a couple of old Windows desktops for games.
Why would the Bush DOJ want Stevens to lose for political reason?
Maybe they realized that Stevens was so bad he even made the Republicans look worse. I'm a supporter of Bush, but thought Stevens represented everything bad about Washington and nothing good. Of course, I feel that way about almost every one Congress, especially the Senate, regardless of party.
[insert non-pointless, but annoying, comment that there is no country called "Columbia", but there is a "Colombia"]
You're definitely on to something there. It's just like when going to give blood. The little prick device they use to extract a couple drops of blood to test the hemoglobin bothers me a lot more than the big old phlebotomy needle, even though the needle hurts more. I realize it's a psychological thing, perhaps having to do with the suddenness of the finger prick vs. gently inserting a needle.
In any event, I definitely know that while maybe I can't eliminate pain with attitude, I _can_ make it a whole lot worse.
I recently watched John Carpenters "The Thing", and despite it being a cutting-edge science-fiction/horror movie, Carpenter noted in the commentary track that the scene with the characters using a knife to make a cut to extract blood bothered many people more than the hard-core blood-n-guts effects. One element is that cutting your finger is realistic and everyone's experienced it, as opposed to being eaten by a polymorphic alien, which is a somewhat less common occurrence. But another element is, I think, the same reason the pin-prick dealie bothers me more than many things that actually cause more pain.
Wow grandpa, did you know Galileo personally?
Now come on, let's not exaggerate. Galileo lived in Italy. I lived in Virginia at the time (and still do).
BTW, did you know Galileo almost discovered Neptune? He saw it, and recorded it, but as it was transitioning to retrograde movement and thus wasn't moving relative to the stars, he thought it was another star.
O.o, I had no idea Pluto was no longer a planet until now. Wow.
It is to me. I don't care what the eggheads say. :-/