It's not the 2% that matters, if you are making enough money to pay the 2%, you wouldn't care much about it.
It's the 2K$ that bites you in the ass, since you are unlikely to make that in revenues.
Of course, if MS has some MP3 talking about their products, they *could* potentially try to take 2% of MS' revenue.;-D
You don't have to read 300 pages before you install Windows.
If you want to do an automated install, or some funky stuff, *then* you need to read the documentation.
Well, that depend on the unit that you measure it.
If you measure it in billions, you could use a byte, unsigned one, for the next couple of months, then you would have to move to unsigned short.
If you want it in dollars, then it's:
huge long long hllMicrosoftProfits;
Wrong, what you are talking about is a *power* user, which is something between an admin & a user, which is still limited.
A user can't do anything to the system, by default, he only has read access to WinNT & Program Files directories, as well as to HKLM, which mean that nothing will install for him.
I can't agree more with your second point.
MS does seem to to limit the eye candy to an amount that doesn't distract you from what you are doing while working. (I write this from XP, btw)
I understand that Aqua *does* get in the way, am I correct?
Will give you it.
Looking in the *documentation* will give you it.
I know this is silly, looking at the documentation for documentated stuff, but *try* it.
I agree about this.
I found that the most conuming part was formatting to NTFS.
And that the easiest way to solve it is to feed the installer with a script.
The other advantage is that there are some options that you can control from the script that you can't from the UI.
Why are they testing a desktop OS with a workstation OS?
And why test Win2K when they can get WinXP's betas, which are more comparable with the OSX?
If they wanted to do a real testing, they should've gone and tested WinME (bad idea) or WinXP.
WinXP allows you to setup a network connection during setup too. (It's kinda of sad that XP need it for the activation.)
I was very surprised to see that Win2k won on the *interface* match.
ObjectWatch has an article about why he doesn't like EJB.
It's mainly because there is a probability to a database corruption.
I don't think that.NET *has* to have COM+, the implementation on Windows relies on COM+, and a COM+ application can be changed to be.NET one quite easily, apperantly.
But it's possible to create a.NET implementation that relies on something else.
You mention that XPCOM & Bonobo are incompatible, but they can be *made* compatible. They are close enough that they can be used.
Again, this is just theorizing, because MS has not yet revealed to what other platform it will release.NET (they have to if they want to standartise it.)
I was surprised that they choose Linux, I would assume that they would go to the Mac for the second implementation.
1> Absolutely not, AFAIK. EJB has several weaknesses, I suggest that you will read www.objectwatch.com about them.
2> COM is not unique to Windows. Solaris has it, Mozilla has it (XPCOM) Gnome has it Bonobo. If.NET require COM+, it could be implemented on other systems. You could possibly do it with CORBA, I suppose.
They *aren't* part of the page.
You can click on a word and it will give you a list of options, but it's *clearly* not part of the page.
Frex, if you click on the word Microsoft, you can choose if to view their stock, go to their home page, read recent press releases, etc.
The same happens with Apple, CompaQ, as well as a host of other companies.
COM+ *is*.NET
.NET is a huge subject, mainly because MS likes unified names, so they push everything but the kitchen sink into a.NET, but writing.NET application is just an evolution of COM+ ones.
It doesn't work like this!
If you mention burger king, then you get a wavy line under it, which you can click, and it will give you a list of stuff about BK, like comapny site, company stock, etc.
McDonald doesn't enter the picture.
Slashdot Mirror
He could look at GnuVB
It's not ready for prime time yet, unfortantely.
You might get a chuckle or two here, BTW.
Personally, I think that moving from VB to Delphi or Java shouldn't be too hard for an experiance programmer.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
I wonder how many terminals this can serve, it's cheaper than most PCs, after all.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Now the Californian can blame *someone* for their power problems.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
It's not the 2% that matters, if you are making enough money to pay the 2%, you wouldn't care much about it.
;-D
It's the 2K$ that bites you in the ass, since you are unlikely to make that in revenues.
Of course, if MS has some MP3 talking about their products, they *could* potentially try to take 2% of MS' revenue.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
There is, but MP3 is accepted as a de-facto standard.
It would take time (and money) to switch formats.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
You wouldn't use TCP for streaming, too much overhead.
For streaming stuff, you usually use UDP.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
You don't have to read 300 pages before you install Windows.
If you want to do an automated install, or some funky stuff, *then* you need to read the documentation.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Display>Appearances>Advance
Will give you the color changing.
The themes will work, too.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Have you check Office prices?
:-D
Better enclose 800$
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Well, that depend on the unit that you measure it.
If you measure it in billions, you could use a byte, unsigned one, for the next couple of months, then you would have to move to unsigned short.
If you want it in dollars, then it's:
huge long long hllMicrosoftProfits;
--
Two witches watch two watches.
You *do* realize that 100$ a year, plus the automatic upgrade, is *cheaper* than the current price?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
No, Java can't do it.
Or, to be rather exact, Java doesn't *do* it.
ObjectWatch had a research about the details.
It should be in http://www.objectwatch.com/Issue_33.htm in a couple of days.
I no longer have the email, sorry.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
What, exactly, is .Net?
And what is the difference between Open Source, Free Software, Linux and GPL.
Do you have cancer?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Wrong, what you are talking about is a *power* user, which is something between an admin & a user, which is still limited.
A user can't do anything to the system, by default, he only has read access to WinNT & Program Files directories, as well as to HKLM, which mean that nothing will install for him.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
I can't agree more with your second point.
MS does seem to to limit the eye candy to an amount that doesn't distract you from what you are doing while working. (I write this from XP, btw)
I understand that Aqua *does* get in the way, am I correct?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
\i386\winnt/?
Will give you it.
Looking in the *documentation* will give you it.
I know this is silly, looking at the documentation for documentated stuff, but *try* it.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Why? Do you think that the older versions would expire?
--
Two witches watch two watches.
www.plonter.co.il
--
Two witches watch two watches.
I agree about this.
I found that the most conuming part was formatting to NTFS.
And that the easiest way to solve it is to feed the installer with a script.
The other advantage is that there are some options that you can control from the script that you can't from the UI.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Why are they testing a desktop OS with a workstation OS?
And why test Win2K when they can get WinXP's betas, which are more comparable with the OSX?
If they wanted to do a real testing, they should've gone and tested WinME (bad idea) or WinXP.
WinXP allows you to setup a network connection during setup too. (It's kinda of sad that XP need it for the activation.)
I was very surprised to see that Win2k won on the *interface* match.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
ObjectWatch has an article about why he doesn't like EJB.
.NET *has* to have COM+, the implementation on Windows relies on COM+, and a COM+ application can be changed to be .NET one quite easily, apperantly.
.NET implementation that relies on something else.
.NET (they have to if they want to standartise it.)
It's mainly because there is a probability to a database corruption.
I don't think that
But it's possible to create a
You mention that XPCOM & Bonobo are incompatible, but they can be *made* compatible. They are close enough that they can be used.
Again, this is just theorizing, because MS has not yet revealed to what other platform it will release
I was surprised that they choose Linux, I would assume that they would go to the Mac for the second implementation.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
1> Absolutely not, AFAIK. EJB has several weaknesses, I suggest that you will read www.objectwatch.com about them. .NET require COM+, it could be implemented on other systems. You could possibly do it with CORBA, I suppose.
2> COM is not unique to Windows. Solaris has it, Mozilla has it (XPCOM) Gnome has it Bonobo. If
--
Two witches watch two watches.
They *aren't* part of the page.
You can click on a word and it will give you a list of options, but it's *clearly* not part of the page.
Frex, if you click on the word Microsoft, you can choose if to view their stock, go to their home page, read recent press releases, etc.
The same happens with Apple, CompaQ, as well as a host of other companies.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
COM+ *is* .NET
.NET, but writing .NET application is just an evolution of COM+ ones.
.NET is a huge subject, mainly because MS likes unified names, so they push everything but the kitchen sink into a
--
Two witches watch two watches.
It doesn't work like this!
If you mention burger king, then you get a wavy line under it, which you can click, and it will give you a list of stuff about BK, like comapny site, company stock, etc.
McDonald doesn't enter the picture.
--
Two witches watch two watches.