That '74 Cad is one the few vehicles on the road with REAL 5 mph bumpers. (Meaning you could hit a wall at 5 mph without any damage to your car or yourself.) There's also big giant IBeams inside the doors for added safety.
Of course, those bumpers also are ugly as shit. '74s were also the first year with both emission controls and fuel economy restrictions. Because of this I highly recommend a '69 to '72 Caddy for your left lane crusing, with either the 472 or the 500 engine suitable for this use or for blowing various wannabe sportscars off of stoplights.
So, electronic bill paying and shopping are good because you can work longer hours? Or perhaps because you can do it from your desk and feel a less pressing need to get home?
Well, the rolling back of the 40 hour work week is certainly an arguable "benefit of technology". (And probably contributes to more of the recent "productivity gains" than any tech has directly.)
I can almost see the argument that electronic services give you more time to spend with your wife/kids/friends/whoever, but the cynical side of me thinks that it really just frees up more time for media consumption.
NTFS supports an Execute permission bit too. One could disable it in the user profile directories, and see what breaks.
Of course, one big problem on Win2000 is 'legacy' programs that like to write all over the drive, making it virtually impossible to even get close to a permission setup like a typical Unix. (For example, %TEMP% is set to a private profile directory, but some software just uses C:\TEMP anyway.)
It's unlikely that IBM was paying that full $90 price for Windows, because they owned full rights to Windows 3.0 and below according the MS divorce terms.
During the anti-trust trial, it came out that IBM was paying $11/copy for Windows 3.11 as an OEM. It's possible they had to pay 'full retail' for the OS/2 component, but extremely unlikely.
"OS/2 For Windows" was cheaper, but my guess is that the big reason was because it was marketed towards home users and it wouldn't undercut corporate folks paying $300-$500 for the full version. Plus it was an 'upgrade'.
OS/2 2.1 was sold and advertised at retail, true. But I think this was once again after it was clear that OS/2 hadn't gained much widespread corporate traction.
Now whether OS/2 2.1 was really designed as a consumer OS... I think the default desktop setup and the lack of out-of-box support for anything but SCSI CD-ROMs tells that tale.
IBM was taking advantage of the incredible frustration out there with Win 3.1, but it sure looked like short term cash scam instead of a real strategy, at least until Warp 4 (The Tombstone Edition) came out.
IBM did not support OS/2 because they did not want to piss off Billy G. Once M$ gave up on OS/2 IBM saw the handwriting on the wall and did all they could not to piss him off so that they could continue to sell/support Windows.
IBM did not screw me, Bill Gates did. If he had licensed Win32 to IBM I would be running Win32 apps on OS/2 version 5 or 6 right now.
Microsoft gave IBM the finger in 1989 -- 4 years before there even was a Win32 and 7 years before there was any market for it. When Windows NT shipped, I don't recall any customer interest or desire to run 32-bit Windows programs from the OS/2 user community, and when Windows 95 shipped, OS/2 had effectively met it's fate.
I was there in IT too, and managed a hellava lot of OS/2 1.x, 2.x and 3.x boxes, and can't say I miss OS/2 was any more than I miss Windows 3.1. Anyway You say you were in IT, but you have the history so fouled up and confused, I gotta wonder....
+ Microchannel came 5 years after Compaq reverse-engineered the PC, and long after IBM had a majority of PC sales.
+ People who say "DASD" were the enemy in the PC Wars of the 80s'. IBM had no friends there after Microchannel and the Microsoft Divorce, and it's been a long crawl back after such other great ideas as OS/2 and PowerPersonal.
+ Expecting Gates to licence anything to IBM, espeically to prop up WinNT's #1 competitor in the PC app server market is especially thick $3 crack talk.
+ Windows For Workgroups shipped with a real LAN TCP/IP stack before OS/2 Warp's broken PPP thing came out. We used to pay $300/copy just a for TCP/IP driver for OS/2 2.x, BTW.
And as far as civil conversation goes, first try to get a leg to stand on, then we'll get civililzed.
What killed OS/2 was Bill Gates' refusal to license Win32 to IBM.
Crack smoker. OS/2 was roadkill at IBM long before Windows 95 and any Win32 programs shipped.
And Microchannel did contribute to OS/2's downfall: IBM marketed a special "Extended" version of OS/2 1.x that supposedly only ran on MCA machines. This contributed to the (mostly accurate) perception that IBM was trying to introduce hardware/software lock-in and monopolize the PC industry. Which made anyone with any sense run as fast as possible from anything IBM, including OS/2.
Of course, since you only stumbled on this whole thing with "Warp", it's all prehistory to you, and you have absolutely no clue of the bungles and bullshit surrounding OS/2 for first 7 years of it's history. ("Warp" was a pathetic last-ditch attempt to improve OS/2's balance book by taking home user sucker money, BTW. OS/2 was already dead and buried in it's core corporate markets. IBM planned to screw you all along.)
No shock about those stats, despite the old chestnut that IDE and SCSI are really the same disk mechinisms. Right now, despite the technical pros-n-cons, the interfaces are essentially being used to segregate the desktop and server markets.
If there ever were special "IDE-for-Servers" disks, I would imagine that they would cost almost exactly what SCSI disks do.
[after talking of the 80386 and Windows/386, then the 80486] The year is now 1990. Windows 3.0 and Macintosh System 7 are about to be released.
Were Windows 3.0 and 3.1 not around during the 80386? I know that Windows/386 is not Windows 3.0 but I seem to remember working with Windows 3.0 in high school on 80386s when they were new.
When the i486 shipped it was very, very expensive for the first year or two, so i386s were still being sold. Hell, back in about 1990, before Windows took over, there were still 8086 and 8088 machines being sold, even by major companies such as IBM.
Also, if Intel really believed the P4 was its best chip, why are the colored guys on TV hyping the P3 like there's no tomorrow?
I think it's called the "Osborne Effect" (after the doomed Osborne Computer company) -- People tend to stop buying the existing (crap) when new (crap) is coming out, even if the existing (crap) is just fine.
Or did you think that as soon as the P4 started shipping in limited quantities that the millions of PIII machines in the inventory pipeline would disappear? Now that the XMas and post-XMas selling season has almost come and gone, expect a huge blitz of Pentium 4 ads informing the poor consumer that his shiny new Christmas Computer is already obsolete.
Hahahaha!:) How long does it take someone to get a shell, after it's been installed? Two seconds? Three?:) How long does it take someone to get a shell, after it's been installed? Two seconds? Three?
The consensus opinion is that there will not be a terminal installed in the release version of OS X. Shells scare Mac users.
It looks like you will need to sign up, download, and install some sort of developer kit, or order it on CD to get the Terminal.app. Or download a replacement.
The P4 is intended to be a real fast desktop chip. The lack of SMP options and the funky motherboard is intentional to keep it there so that IA-64 can move into server space. (Remember when a 4-way Pentium Pro board was a 'commodity' item. No More.)
As for AMD -- they are the one milking i386. Sledgehammer will be the most kick-ass 64-bit chip to ever run 16-bit code on Windows ME.
It's been shown over and over again that forcing coders to do things a certain way doesnt work, because we're lazy.
Faa -- The whole game of the mainstream computing market is trying to introduce something new without breaking back-compatibility. It's not the programmers that are lazy -- it's the consumers, who are still out there holding onto 8086 and 80286 and i386 software with white knuckles. (In fact, one nice thing about this/. discussion is the lack of people ragging on the x86 ISA and instead advocating MIPS or Alpha or something.) Recompiling with VC7 or something P-IV optimised *is* the lazy solution.
Intel *has* a solution for poor speed on 'legacy' code -- it's called cranking the clock speed up to 2GHz, efficiency be damned. This is faster on legacy code than any P6 that Intel could possibly make, BTW.
For 90% of the people for which that isn't a good enough solution, they can recompile. The other 10% is either out of luck or a Quake player that just has a bug up his ass that his shiny new 1.5Ghz chip isn't running at maximum efficency.
The author of the article makes his technical points, but the guy is a crank. See his previous Slashdot appearance complaining about Apple and other Mac software vendors dropping O40 support, for example (thus making his handcrafted emulators useless, even though Mac users were more than happy to leave 68K behind.)
Well, that's back when NICs cost a few hundred bucks, so I can see the cost argument. (Plus, you need[ed] a central server for Novell networks...)
One reason for the huge success of early net games like Doom and Warcraft was the Stay Late at Work phenomonon, which probably nobody would have expected or marketed too as games were 'home' software.
Doom was especially good because pretty much any ol 486 on the company LAN could get into a game. Nowdays, with 3D cards virtually required, you don't see so much LAN gaming (my work PIII-700 with craptacular i810 video was groaning playing UT, for example; forget about playing anything beyond Quake 1 on my po' ol' 233 laptop, if I only had DOS to load it up with.)
What's really cool is the emergency stop mechanism. Which, IIRC, is a big concrete anchor that drops onto the ground, and stops the thing really really quickly.
Hey, Mr 510 - besides the historic F line that you see from your window, San Francisco has 5 other Streetcar lines with a mix of 70s cars and brand new ones.
Most of them run out to the Sunset via a tunnel under Market Street and Twin Peaks, but maybe some of your Noe Valley pals get the J-Church.
Yeah WTS... despite the fact that our host box goes down every other day (known issue, apparently...) the seat licences cost almost as much as a W2K Professional licence, which we've also bought. (Admin connections are thankfully free.)
Since you have to justify this thing on admin costs alone, it will probably never really catch on in a wide scale way in the Windows world. I'd be all for VNC, but I've heard that it doesn't handle multi-user correctly on Windows, and it's really just an admin solution.
Oh yeah, Windows boxes are inherently more insecure, Because Dogma Says So. Way to confuse a good point (about the lack of testing of SSH Clients on Win32) with some stupid/bot rage, "G".
Anyway, I've 'secured' this Windows box the same way you Linux boys always recommend doing it -- shutting off all services, no NBT (==no RPC), and no IIS. And I didn't need to read your sig to know not to run trojans, and lock down IE and not run as Administrator.
Meanwhile, RedHat keeps finding nice root holes in basic good ol' standbys such as LPD and BIND. I mean, Fucking A, look at the RedHat advisory list: modutils, pine, bash, nfs-util, ed(!)/vim/emacs/joe, PAM, 'usermode', traceroute, openldap, gpm, and so on. All bread-n-butter stuff in the Unix world, and still br0ken. (I won't even comment on the fact that the standard EDitor has a security hole.)
Oh yeah, but you know the Linux drill -- firewall, kill all the network services, don't allow interactive access. Sounds exactly as secure as Windows!
Slashdot Mirror
That '74 Cad is one the few vehicles on the road with REAL 5 mph bumpers. (Meaning you could hit a wall at 5 mph without any damage to your car or yourself.) There's also big giant IBeams inside the doors for added safety.
Of course, those bumpers also are ugly as shit. '74s were also the first year with both emission controls and fuel economy restrictions. Because of this I highly recommend a '69 to '72 Caddy for your left lane crusing, with either the 472 or the 500 engine suitable for this use or for blowing various wannabe sportscars off of stoplights.
Not to mention the "cutting off the air supply" actions against Eudora and FreeAgent, unnoticed with all of the hullabaloo around Netscape.
Yes, but swapping 30+ floppy disks (depending on whether you installed the "MMPM" or not) wasn't the most pleasant experience, right?
I know support for other CD-ROMs was there, just not in the box, so not consumer friendly.
So, electronic bill paying and shopping are good because you can work longer hours? Or perhaps because you can do it from your desk and feel a less pressing need to get home?
Well, the rolling back of the 40 hour work week is certainly an arguable "benefit of technology". (And probably contributes to more of the recent "productivity gains" than any tech has directly.)
I can almost see the argument that electronic services give you more time to spend with your wife/kids/friends/whoever, but the cynical side of me thinks that it really just frees up more time for media consumption.
NTFS supports an Execute permission bit too. One could disable it in the user profile directories, and see what breaks.
Of course, one big problem on Win2000 is 'legacy' programs that like to write all over the drive, making it virtually impossible to even get close to a permission setup like a typical Unix. (For example, %TEMP% is set to a private profile directory, but some software just uses C:\TEMP anyway.)
Another Word Perfect example: Portions of the Starr (Clinton Sex Scandal) Report were undeleted by the media, leading to some embarassing revelations.
It's unlikely that IBM was paying that full $90 price for Windows, because they owned full rights to Windows 3.0 and below according the MS divorce terms.
During the anti-trust trial, it came out that IBM was paying $11/copy for Windows 3.11 as an OEM. It's possible they had to pay 'full retail' for the OS/2 component, but extremely unlikely.
"OS/2 For Windows" was cheaper, but my guess is that the big reason was because it was marketed towards home users and it wouldn't undercut corporate folks paying $300-$500 for the full version. Plus it was an 'upgrade'.
OS/2 2.1 was sold and advertised at retail, true. But I think this was once again after it was clear that OS/2 hadn't gained much widespread corporate traction.
... I think the default desktop setup and the lack of out-of-box support for anything but SCSI CD-ROMs tells that tale.
Now whether OS/2 2.1 was really designed as a consumer OS
IBM was taking advantage of the incredible frustration out there with Win 3.1, but it sure looked like short term cash scam instead of a real strategy, at least until Warp 4 (The Tombstone Edition) came out.
IBM did not support OS/2 because they did not want to piss off Billy G. Once M$ gave up on OS/2 IBM saw the handwriting on the wall and did all they could not to piss him off so that they could continue to sell/support Windows.
IBM did not screw me, Bill Gates did. If he had licensed Win32 to IBM I would be running Win32 apps on OS/2 version 5 or 6 right now.
Microsoft gave IBM the finger in 1989 -- 4 years before there even was a Win32 and 7 years before there was any market for it. When Windows NT shipped, I don't recall any customer interest or desire to run 32-bit Windows programs from the OS/2 user community, and when Windows 95 shipped, OS/2 had effectively met it's fate.
I was there in IT too, and managed a hellava lot of OS/2 1.x, 2.x and 3.x boxes, and can't say I miss OS/2 was any more than I miss Windows 3.1. Anyway You say you were in IT, but you have the history so fouled up and confused, I gotta wonder....
+ Microchannel came 5 years after Compaq reverse-engineered the PC, and long after IBM had a majority of PC sales.
+ People who say "DASD" were the enemy in the PC Wars of the 80s'. IBM had no friends there after Microchannel and the Microsoft Divorce, and it's been a long crawl back after such other great ideas as OS/2 and PowerPersonal.
+ Expecting Gates to licence anything to IBM, espeically to prop up WinNT's #1 competitor in the PC app server market is especially thick $3 crack talk.
+ Windows For Workgroups shipped with a real LAN TCP/IP stack before OS/2 Warp's broken PPP thing came out. We used to pay $300/copy just a for TCP/IP driver for OS/2 2.x, BTW.
And as far as civil conversation goes, first try to get a leg to stand on, then we'll get civililzed.
What killed OS/2 was Bill Gates' refusal to license Win32 to IBM.
Crack smoker. OS/2 was roadkill at IBM long before Windows 95 and any Win32 programs shipped.
And Microchannel did contribute to OS/2's downfall: IBM marketed a special "Extended" version of OS/2 1.x that supposedly only ran on MCA machines. This contributed to the (mostly accurate) perception that IBM was trying to introduce hardware/software lock-in and monopolize the PC industry. Which made anyone with any sense run as fast as possible from anything IBM, including OS/2.
Of course, since you only stumbled on this whole thing with "Warp", it's all prehistory to you, and you have absolutely no clue of the bungles and bullshit surrounding OS/2 for first 7 years of it's history. ("Warp" was a pathetic last-ditch attempt to improve OS/2's balance book by taking home user sucker money, BTW. OS/2 was already dead and buried in it's core corporate markets. IBM planned to screw you all along.)
It did.
The problem with OS/2 2.x was that it only supported SCSI CD-ROMs out of the box.
Much fiddling required for the more common SoundBlaster or Sony types, much less E-IDE models.
No shock about those stats, despite the old chestnut that IDE and SCSI are really the same disk mechinisms. Right now, despite the technical pros-n-cons, the interfaces are essentially being used to segregate the desktop and server markets.
If there ever were special "IDE-for-Servers" disks, I would imagine that they would cost almost exactly what SCSI disks do.
[after talking of the 80386 and Windows/386, then the 80486] The year is now 1990. Windows 3.0 and Macintosh System 7 are about to be released.
Were Windows 3.0 and 3.1 not around during the 80386? I know that Windows/386 is not Windows 3.0 but I seem to remember working with Windows 3.0 in high school on 80386s when they were new.
When the i486 shipped it was very, very expensive for the first year or two, so i386s were still being sold. Hell, back in about 1990, before Windows took over, there were still 8086 and 8088 machines being sold, even by major companies such as IBM.
Also, if Intel really believed the P4 was its best chip, why are the colored guys on TV hyping the P3 like there's no tomorrow?
I think it's called the "Osborne Effect" (after the doomed Osborne Computer company) -- People tend to stop buying the existing (crap) when new (crap) is coming out, even if the existing (crap) is just fine.
Or did you think that as soon as the P4 started shipping in limited quantities that the millions of PIII machines in the inventory pipeline would disappear? Now that the XMas and post-XMas selling season has almost come and gone, expect a huge blitz of Pentium 4 ads informing the poor consumer that his shiny new Christmas Computer is already obsolete.
Hahahaha! :) How long does it take someone to get a shell, after it's been installed? Two seconds? Three? :) How long does it take someone to get a shell, after it's been installed? Two seconds? Three?
:) to you.
The consensus opinion is that there will not be a terminal installed in the release version of OS X. Shells scare Mac users.
It looks like you will need to sign up, download, and install some sort of developer kit, or order it on CD to get the Terminal.app. Or download a replacement.
So Hahahaha!
The P4 is intended to be a real fast desktop chip. The lack of SMP options and the funky motherboard is intentional to keep it there so that IA-64 can move into server space. (Remember when a 4-way Pentium Pro board was a 'commodity' item. No More.)
As for AMD -- they are the one milking i386. Sledgehammer will be the most kick-ass 64-bit chip to ever run 16-bit code on Windows ME.
It's been shown over and over again that forcing coders to do things a certain way doesnt work, because we're lazy.
/. discussion is the lack of people ragging on the x86 ISA and instead advocating MIPS or Alpha or something.) Recompiling with VC7 or something P-IV optimised *is* the lazy solution.
Faa -- The whole game of the mainstream computing market is trying to introduce something new without breaking back-compatibility. It's not the programmers that are lazy -- it's the consumers, who are still out there holding onto 8086 and 80286 and i386 software with white knuckles. (In fact, one nice thing about this
Intel *has* a solution for poor speed on 'legacy' code -- it's called cranking the clock speed up to 2GHz, efficiency be damned. This is faster on legacy code than any P6 that Intel could possibly make, BTW.
For 90% of the people for which that isn't a good enough solution, they can recompile. The other 10% is either out of luck or a Quake player that just has a bug up his ass that his shiny new 1.5Ghz chip isn't running at maximum efficency.
The author of the article makes his technical points, but the guy is a crank. See his previous Slashdot appearance complaining about Apple and other Mac software vendors dropping O40 support, for example (thus making his handcrafted emulators useless, even though Mac users were more than happy to leave 68K behind.)
Well, that's back when NICs cost a few hundred bucks, so I can see the cost argument. (Plus, you need[ed] a central server for Novell networks...)
One reason for the huge success of early net games like Doom and Warcraft was the Stay Late at Work phenomonon, which probably nobody would have expected or marketed too as games were 'home' software.
Doom was especially good because pretty much any ol 486 on the company LAN could get into a game. Nowdays, with 3D cards virtually required, you don't see so much LAN gaming (my work PIII-700 with craptacular i810 video was groaning playing UT, for example; forget about playing anything beyond Quake 1 on my po' ol' 233 laptop, if I only had DOS to load it up with.)
"You think I'm some newcomer dotcommie? "
Trying to smoke them out. No worries.
What's really cool is the emergency stop mechanism. Which, IIRC, is a big concrete anchor that drops onto the ground, and stops the thing really really quickly.
Good point, probably quite a few. (Athough, %TEMP% under Windows 2000 is not a shared directory.)
Hey, Mr 510 - besides the historic F line that you see from your window, San Francisco has 5 other Streetcar lines with a mix of 70s cars and brand new ones.
Most of them run out to the Sunset via a tunnel under Market Street and Twin Peaks, but maybe some of your Noe Valley pals get the J-Church.
Yeah WTS ... despite the fact that our host box goes down every other day (known issue, apparently...) the seat licences cost almost as much as a W2K Professional licence, which we've also bought. (Admin connections are thankfully free.)
Since you have to justify this thing on admin costs alone, it will probably never really catch on in a wide scale way in the Windows world. I'd be all for VNC, but I've heard that it doesn't handle multi-user correctly on Windows, and it's really just an admin solution.
You shithead post shit like this on every Slashdot article that mentions Beta.
BetaMax -- Consumer format, dead
BetaCam -- Professional format, still very alive.
The tapes look about the same, but the formats were never compatible (except for some pro cross-over models), period.
Oh yeah, Windows boxes are inherently more insecure, Because Dogma Says So. Way to confuse a good point (about the lack of testing of SSH Clients on Win32) with some stupid /bot rage, "G".
Anyway, I've 'secured' this Windows box the same way you Linux boys always recommend doing it -- shutting off all services, no NBT (==no RPC), and no IIS. And I didn't need to read your sig to know not to run trojans, and lock down IE and not run as Administrator.
Meanwhile, RedHat keeps finding nice root holes in basic good ol' standbys such as LPD and BIND. I mean, Fucking A, look at the RedHat advisory list: modutils, pine, bash, nfs-util, ed(!)/vim/emacs/joe, PAM, 'usermode', traceroute, openldap, gpm, and so on. All bread-n-butter stuff in the Unix world, and still br0ken. (I won't even comment on the fact that the standard EDitor has a security hole.)
Oh yeah, but you know the Linux drill -- firewall, kill all the network services, don't allow interactive access. Sounds exactly as secure as Windows!