I recently ordered a high-end desktop machine (for work, not gaming) and after careful research paid extra to "downgrade" from Vista to XP.
Here are my mostly non-technical reasons for making that decision:
1 - never buy in too early... when MS starts talking about the next thing down the line they always follow through. Vista hasn't been out very long in OS terms and they're already focusing their primary teams on a replacement. Doesn't bode well for not-terribly-early but somewhat-early adopters who will be looking for future service packs.
2 - reliability, stability, consistency... Unlike for gamers, technology adaptation in the average business world tends to be slow at best. Where's the backwards compatibility? I have a few clients using old custom-built 16-bit applications that I understand will not run on Vista. They spent a fortune creating and deploying them (years ago, granted) and are not planning to rewrite them this year that I know of. Not everyone is going to agree that this is a problem, but it is a business world reality.
3 - I'm old... I don't want to change the way I work because my OS says I have to - I like having multiple screens. I like my ancient printer. I love my gargantuan cancer-causing monitor. A colleague of mine recently installed Vista... none of his existing peripherals (including monitor) would function, so a $800 tower turned into a $3000 hardware investment.
4 - fear of the unknown... when XP came out, it required extensive locking-down for privacy and security reasons, but at least it is possible. MS is notorious for lack of info (and also for spy-ware labeled as "features"), so it seems prudent for someone that feels they already spend too much time dealing with OS issues to wait until the support forums mature a bit at least.
5 - when 3rd party utilities such vLite start to sound like a good idea, it is time to run the other direction and find a better solution. God I wish Windows was open source.
OK, so this line of reasoning may not hold true for everyone (or anyone for that matter), but for my purposes the decision was to wait.
After being laid off (again) a year ago, I started a new php programming job near Cleveland, OH in November. My new job pays LESS THAN HALF of my previous salary, coming in at USD $33k. I don't know about the rest of the nation, but I competed with dozens of people for this position, and commute 90 minutes each way.
When it came time to negotiate it went like this: "This position pays $33k, and we'd love to have you on board." "I'd really like to join this company, but that salary is extremely low by any measure. The minimum I could accept is $45k." "I understand this may be less than what you're used to, however we predetermined our rate of pay prior to holding interviews. We have great benefits and.... BLAH BLAH BLAH... the position pays $33k"
I've never negotiated for a position and gotten NOTHING... shows to go ya its still very much an employer's market.
I was hired, I'm sure, because the company is confident that I'm not going to find a job elsewhere (and haven't so far).
It would be interesting to see these figures adjusted for regional cost of living - they just don't seem to jive with reality in the Midwest.
but now i think its intentional- can they make the project sound any more like feminine napkins? maybe they should come up with a new discrete carrying case
I've worked both with teams outsourced to India and with H1-B visa holders, and I believe one reason that roles like programming seem to be disproportionately filled, is that the bulk of the work is in a different language - meaning the programming language itself. The perception by companies benefiting from these immigration laws is that broken English is less of an issue in this line of work.
That is, generally, until the company expects documentation, or would like the software design to match business rules...
I don't know how frequently eye transplants occur, but it's a potential problem. Best bet would be combine this with fingerprinting or something similar. I don't think there's much to fuss about here - in ten or fifteen years they'll be talking about dna scanning anyway...
Any software that is developed is susceptable (sp?) to the same issues, and it all comes down to the abilities of the programmer. The advantage to open source security is in (generally) improved response time in a distributed environment. Here's an interesting article that points out some of the ways that open source can be affected by 'security through obscurity' that I hadn't seen presented anywhere else.
There's a (fairly) new CNET site with an entire section dedicated to developers handling managment responsibilities. One of the featured articles today is Making the transition from developer to manager. Here's the link: Builder.com Manage.
Comments and articles like this one stem from a fear of having to actually provide a value-add in your software. The market isn't a 'given' anymore, and proprietary giants are either accepting change and moving forward, or crying and screaming in the corner like little baby girlies.
I have yet to find arguments against open source development that actually provide a valid point, or that can't be negated by equal benefits. To say it undermines capitalism is ridiculous. The perceived problem isn't the products, it's in the ability to deliver. Bill just hopes no one else can see that.
Try being a young female to boot...
I'm the technical lead in our company, but nothing chaps my hide more than having to print out web pages, probably written by people less qualified than myself, in order to support any opinion I offer to our non-technical management.
While this is somewhat manipulative, here's some advice that has helped to keep my sanity: I find that if you present your opinion with two options, the one you feel is right and one that you don't, then the talking heads will be distracted enough by the dazzle to allow you to make the correct decision. Three options is too many because then they'll want to have a meeting about it, and one option makes them feel that they have no control over the decision.
Hope this helps!
Slashdot Mirror
I recently ordered a high-end desktop machine (for work, not gaming) and after careful research paid extra to "downgrade" from Vista to XP.
Here are my mostly non-technical reasons for making that decision:
1 - never buy in too early... when MS starts talking about the next thing down the line they always follow through. Vista hasn't been out very long in OS terms and they're already focusing their primary teams on a replacement. Doesn't bode well for not-terribly-early but somewhat-early adopters who will be looking for future service packs.
2 - reliability, stability, consistency... Unlike for gamers, technology adaptation in the average business world tends to be slow at best. Where's the backwards compatibility? I have a few clients using old custom-built 16-bit applications that I understand will not run on Vista. They spent a fortune creating and deploying them (years ago, granted) and are not planning to rewrite them this year that I know of. Not everyone is going to agree that this is a problem, but it is a business world reality.
3 - I'm old... I don't want to change the way I work because my OS says I have to - I like having multiple screens. I like my ancient printer. I love my gargantuan cancer-causing monitor. A colleague of mine recently installed Vista... none of his existing peripherals (including monitor) would function, so a $800 tower turned into a $3000 hardware investment.
4 - fear of the unknown... when XP came out, it required extensive locking-down for privacy and security reasons, but at least it is possible. MS is notorious for lack of info (and also for spy-ware labeled as "features"), so it seems prudent for someone that feels they already spend too much time dealing with OS issues to wait until the support forums mature a bit at least.
5 - when 3rd party utilities such vLite start to sound like a good idea, it is time to run the other direction and find a better solution. God I wish Windows was open source.
OK, so this line of reasoning may not hold true for everyone (or anyone for that matter), but for my purposes the decision was to wait.
After being laid off (again) a year ago, I started a new php programming job near Cleveland, OH in November. My new job pays LESS THAN HALF of my previous salary, coming in at USD $33k. I don't know about the rest of the nation, but I competed with dozens of people for this position, and commute 90 minutes each way.
When it came time to negotiate it went like this:
"This position pays $33k, and we'd love to have you on board."
"I'd really like to join this company, but that salary is extremely low by any measure. The minimum I could accept is $45k."
"I understand this may be less than what you're used to, however we predetermined our rate of pay prior to holding interviews. We have great benefits and.... BLAH BLAH BLAH... the position pays $33k"
I've never negotiated for a position and gotten NOTHING... shows to go ya its still very much an employer's market.
I was hired, I'm sure, because the company is confident that I'm not going to find a job elsewhere (and haven't so far).
It would be interesting to see these figures adjusted for regional cost of living - they just don't seem to jive with reality in the Midwest.
but now i think its intentional- can they make the project sound any more like feminine napkins? maybe they should come up with a new discrete carrying case
I've worked both with teams outsourced to India and with H1-B visa holders, and I believe one reason that roles like programming seem to be disproportionately filled, is that the bulk of the work is in a different language - meaning the programming language itself. The perception by companies benefiting from these immigration laws is that broken English is less of an issue in this line of work.
That is, generally, until the company expects documentation, or would like the software design to match business rules...
I don't know how frequently eye transplants occur, but it's a potential problem. Best bet would be combine this with fingerprinting or something similar. I don't think there's much to fuss about here - in ten or fifteen years they'll be talking about dna scanning anyway...
Any software that is developed is susceptable (sp?) to the same issues, and it all comes down to the abilities of the programmer. The advantage to open source security is in (generally) improved response time in a distributed environment. Here's an interesting article that points out some of the ways that open source can be affected by 'security through obscurity' that I hadn't seen presented anywhere else.
There's a (fairly) new CNET site with an entire section dedicated to developers handling managment responsibilities. One of the featured articles today is Making the transition from developer to manager. Here's the link: Builder.com Manage.
Comments and articles like this one stem from a fear of having to actually provide a value-add in your software. The market isn't a 'given' anymore, and proprietary giants are either accepting change and moving forward, or crying and screaming in the corner like little baby girlies.
I have yet to find arguments against open source development that actually provide a valid point, or that can't be negated by equal benefits. To say it undermines capitalism is ridiculous. The perceived problem isn't the products, it's in the ability to deliver. Bill just hopes no one else can see that.
Try being a young female to boot... I'm the technical lead in our company, but nothing chaps my hide more than having to print out web pages, probably written by people less qualified than myself, in order to support any opinion I offer to our non-technical management. While this is somewhat manipulative, here's some advice that has helped to keep my sanity: I find that if you present your opinion with two options, the one you feel is right and one that you don't, then the talking heads will be distracted enough by the dazzle to allow you to make the correct decision. Three options is too many because then they'll want to have a meeting about it, and one option makes them feel that they have no control over the decision. Hope this helps!
The smartest thing Micro$haft could do, is release their code as opensource(ESR), although i hear gnu is accepting code, too...