I mentioned this before but people scoffed. When VISTA is only running on 15% of computers and Windows 7 claims to be compliant with computers that can run VISTA, this mean that most consumers will need to purchase new systems to run Windows 7. What does this mean for the new Windows 7 launch?
Well if they do it within the next 8-10 months, the economy will most likely not yet be recovered and most consumers and businesses will still be wary of making the large purchases. This means a rough launch for Windows 7. Perhaps in 2 years they will have picked up but they will not get the initial response they wish for because it will still require a large number of consumers/businesses to upgrade from older systems.
Correction. System administration is baby sitting. Development is not. Unless you are doing maintenance of legacy systems in which case you are not a baby sitter, you are more a wet nurse.
And you are a retard. Why do you think that 'VISTA capable' lawsuit is happening? why do you think thousands of consumers downgraded or are sueing because of that 'VISTA compatible' sticker? Just for the record, your brain come out the holes on the TOP of your body. This may help you in the future.
And you are mistaking capable for usable. This is why the lawsuit was happening. Computers and systems that were marked as VISTA capable were NOT in fact capable of running VISTA to the degree that users wanted it to run and with a speed and efficiency that they wanted it to run. Programs locked up and froze, took forever to load and Aqua was either inaccessible or very slow and hogged resources.
The lawsuit wouldn't be happening if 'VISTA capable' actually meant what it said.
There are plenty of computers out there that can run Vista...
Windows Watch and others disagree with you stating that VISTA has approx 15% of the existing desktop market. Again... what was your point? You say PLENTY but I fail to see how 15% is plenty when it comes to people NOT having to upgrade. This means that the remaining 73% OF THEIR REMAINING USER BASE STILL HAS TO UPGRADE!!
Economic issue aside, MS has said it will run on computers that can run Vista, meaning no upgrade in hardware is necessary.
Yes, a failed system that practically no one adopted and those who did downgraded. I believe last recorded it was as high as 15%?? So you think Microsoft has only 15% of the desktop market now?!!! Wow... you must be new around here huh?
Explain to me how if no one uses VISTA, how no one will need to upgrade to a system that is compatible with machines that run VISTA. I'm intrigued by your lack of logic.
May be able to run on the same box as XP but EVERYONE who ran Vista on those XP boxes had to upgrade their graphics card and their RAM ($300+ the price of Windows). And most users don't like to build their own boxes or install cards, so they go out and buy a new one.
And while you SAY it wasn't a disaster, it played out as a 'media disaster' for them and ended up hurting them. All they would have to have is more of the same. So for all those people who DIDN'T buy VISTA (or who downgraded to XP), this is going to be a shock for them all over again that they are going to need new hardware for the new OS. Because they just aren't going to have the money.
And considering that every Microsoft product requires new hardware, the chances that software manufacturers will embrace when is doubtful as they will be waiting to see what consumers will be doing this time around and harware manufacturer will be waiting as well.
Because during a recession/depression, people are tightening their belts. Statistics already show that people are not spending and have already done their nesting spending and are putting everything else into the bank in case something terrible happens which is causing the economy even further troubles.
So who is left to buy their OS (which most likely will require a new computer as they always do)? Not consumers as they are hurting. Not businesses as they are cash strapped. Not the government as they are tryiong to make up for a deficit.
I say good luck getting those sales. This one may be a good OS (*cough* recycled VISTA *cough*) but it will most likely fail on release due to the economic collapse.
I agree. But one would hope a person shows some intellect in these matters.
However the argument can be made that if you rubber stamp everything including your 'hello world' and math assignment. The teacher will just stop looking after awhile and think you to have an overblown ego so that when something actually patentable comes across his desk, he will completely miss it.
Best to have them think you a fool when they are hunting for genius's.
Thats only in the case that the school is giving you a free ride. In which case you are selling your soul. However, you do have a bargaining chip and can negotiate got that far because other schools want you too. Cross out the sections you don't like, have a lawyer present to discuss the terms, etc etc. They do negotiate if they want you on board.
At the top of every project and homework assignment, stamp it 'patent pending, TM 2008 [your name]. All rights reserved' Its annoying but your teachers get the idea. Some teachers may give you crap but others will most likely think it a good idea and some students may even follow your lead.
If you are working on a masters project, you may find it hard to get your professors to sign an NDA however.
Exactly. This is how Ballmer goes hunting for new employees. If he throws the chair too hard and damages the cerebral matter, he gets upper management instead of a new developer.
Lets review that list keeping in mind the recession/depression going on GLOBALLY:
* Productivity Software (Office): Easily replaced with OpenOffice which is compatible with Office/Excel.
* Workstating Operating System: Most of which did not and will not switch to Vista and new machines will not be being purchased during a recession.
* Video game consoles: Sales low and ongoing lawsuit.
* Server operating systems: Not very dominant. Check Netcraft, they have 20% of top 100 domain hosts. Beyond that during a recession, Linux and BSD systems start getting swapped in for Microsoft systems.
* Database software: Mysql is the number 1 database system out there. And note said recession. If they CAN swap out expensive database licenses, they will.
* Exchange (e-mail software? Whatever the hell you wanna call it): Probably the only thing that will keep them going. OpenExchange and others will pick up a bit here and people will avoid upgrading licenses but this is one that enterprises and medium sized businesses will not do without.
* MSNBC: What? Who? Huh? How is this a money maker at all? Notice the NBC part? They only make a portion of that money and not that much.
I've seen Wal-mart's setup. They started off rinky dink, farmed some stuff out, tried to recover and are a half assed mess. I've had to work with their corp HQ. They're retards. And if you have anything to do with the mess they call an infrastructure then it explains alot. It alos would explain why you would throw so many Oracle server out there when you don't need them. Got more money than brains. It's why their network is constantly going down and why Amazon kicks their ass (ie my former employer and who I was an original member of from 95-97). Try dropping another name on me junior... I'm not even close to impressed.
Yes... a telecom is such a small little company. The entire internet only is our backbone. So I fail to hear the name of your company yet? Whats that big ass company with HUNDREDS of Oracle servers?:)
No, I'm afraid you are making an ass of yourself. You stated 100 Oracle servers (not 100 Oracle databases). 100 Oracle databases is understandable, but 100 Oracle servers does not redeem you as someone who knows what you are doing unless you are running the National Archives and even then, you would be running a cluster with replication and not 100 separate server instances. Your statement is an obvious exageration and/or clearly shows your lack of knowledge in database administration. If your statement is true, then you don't have a clue hat you are doing, and you should be using replication and clustering to do what you needed to be doing to scale to an enterprise level . I say this because I used to work for a telecom and we used Oracle AND MySQL side by side and never did we even come close to needing 100 Oracle servers... LOLZ! There is nobody in this world who needs to do that unless they are doing something horribly wrong. I'm actually in the process of replacing someone like you who did something similar. Tell me where you work so I can stop on by and pay them a visit next.
And this site is full of engineers; YOU zealots just come along and make us look bad.
MySQL has alot more community support, better modules and better integration into projects plus is far easier to get support. It has this mainly because it was the first to achieve such large success as a database server for web servers. This and it's ability to use multiple engines on the backend (HEAP, MyIsam, InnoDB, etc). I'm aware of PostGreSQL but it has it's own limitations in comparison to MySQL and is lacking in number of projects and modules that support it. It is progressing but when pitching an open source DB to a company, they will always want to go with the most commonly used and most widely supported product.
At my current company, we have two MySQL servers compared to over one hundred Oracle servers....
This means nothing. For one, you are obviously exaggerating (100 Oracle servers???) and two, that MySQL server could be one cluster and handling 100 terabytes of data transfers like at my old telecom vs just data storage on the Oracle machines. This would imply that the MySQL server are doing the workload of 100 Oracle servers... so I would ask what your point is of pointing out the number of servers and not their workload?
The fact that you think this is a site made up by open source zealots shows your bias (read said sig). We all use Macs, Linux and Windows here (well maybe you don't and hence you shouldn't wear that engineering title)... we just use them where we need too. The right tool for the job. Unfortunately, Windows devs and sys admins believe their companies marketing hype and think their platform is the right tool for EVERY JOB... as you seem to be under the delusion of.
Stop smoking the Microsoft crack pipe for a couple seconds and think for yourself. Every tool has a use and not every tool is good for everything as you are implying. Some tools just naturally are better at certain things and Linux and open source just happen to make better servers. Microsoft happens to suck as a server, Linux happens to suck as a desktop. I wouldn't deploy either for either if I didn't have to. I of course use Linux for MY desktop at work but there is no way in hell I would have a whole company deploying it. And we use Microsoft for exchange server but I have never seen a stable Microsoft server in my life in comparison to Linux server which you can 'set and forget' for months.
It's a harsh fact. Some things are just better at some things than others. Windows is great at playing games though. You should be proud of that, right?
Considering the fact that you are an anonymous coward that doesn't quote any sources and that MySQL is the number 1 database for web servers (been that way for the last couple years) I highly suspect you are spouting FUD and by 'last couple companies', you merely mean 'last couple Microsoft campuses'.
You do realize that this is a engineering website for computer scientists right? Don't you have an Xbox you should be playing with?
I know alot of people who use the 'fortune 500' index as their only index... But it means very little when you use it as your only barometer. Fortune 500 companies typically don't understand technology and move very slowly and purchase contracts with technology companys. They used to work solely with Sun, Novell, Cisco so I wouldn't be surprised to see large Microsoft numbers in the fortune 500. The fortune 500 also makes up a very SMALL percentage of the overall market and does not reflect the market in general so using it as your ONLY barometer is incredibly skewed and unbalanced.
I work for a unnamed financial company who is most likely one of them, and guess what we are in the process of doing? Switching our IVR systems to Asterisk, moving databases to MySQL and switching Microsoft servers to Linux. I pointed the company to several vendors who provide support (Sun, Canonical/Redhat, Digium) and they are pleased in the fact that they are able to cut costs by about a HUNDRED THOUSAND A YEAR... and thats just for starters. This has given them a taste for what else they can move to open source.
So don't let the fortune 500 numbers (which as I stated are a small percentage of the actual server market) skew what the actual market uses. What they choose to use is based upon the fact that they are large behemoths and have to have lots of other companies servicing them... like lampreys cleaning the barnacles off a bloated whale. They are not agile and have to have those other companies servicing them. This is not how most companies work and as a result, they are not good reflections of the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I mentioned this before but people scoffed. When VISTA is only running on 15% of computers and Windows 7 claims to be compliant with computers that can run VISTA, this mean that most consumers will need to purchase new systems to run Windows 7. What does this mean for the new Windows 7 launch?
Well if they do it within the next 8-10 months, the economy will most likely not yet be recovered and most consumers and businesses will still be wary of making the large purchases. This means a rough launch for Windows 7. Perhaps in 2 years they will have picked up but they will not get the initial response they wish for because it will still require a large number of consumers/businesses to upgrade from older systems.
Maintenance and maintenance of legacy systems are not the same thing. Alot of new development goes on with maintenance of non-legacy systems.
Correction. System administration is baby sitting. Development is not. Unless you are doing maintenance of legacy systems in which case you are not a baby sitter, you are more a wet nurse.
And you are a retard. Why do you think that 'VISTA capable' lawsuit is happening? why do you think thousands of consumers downgraded or are sueing because of that 'VISTA compatible' sticker? Just for the record, your brain come out the holes on the TOP of your body. This may help you in the future.
And you are mistaking capable for usable. This is why the lawsuit was happening. Computers and systems that were marked as VISTA capable were NOT in fact capable of running VISTA to the degree that users wanted it to run and with a speed and efficiency that they wanted it to run. Programs locked up and froze, took forever to load and Aqua was either inaccessible or very slow and hogged resources.
The lawsuit wouldn't be happening if 'VISTA capable' actually meant what it said.
Windows Watch and others disagree with you stating that VISTA has approx 15% of the existing desktop market. Again... what was your point? You say PLENTY but I fail to see how 15% is plenty when it comes to people NOT having to upgrade. This means that the remaining 73% OF THEIR REMAINING USER BASE STILL HAS TO UPGRADE!!
Yes, a failed system that practically no one adopted and those who did downgraded. I believe last recorded it was as high as 15%?? So you think Microsoft has only 15% of the desktop market now?!!! Wow... you must be new around here huh?
Explain to me how if no one uses VISTA, how no one will need to upgrade to a system that is compatible with machines that run VISTA. I'm intrigued by your lack of logic.
And I'll bet you are STILL running on 1 GB of RAM without a graphics upgrade. Yep, I'd buy that and the hedge fund you're selling, Mr Madoff.
Wishful thinking there Gilligan. Now go build me an economic recovery made out of coconuts.
May be able to run on the same box as XP but EVERYONE who ran Vista on those XP boxes had to upgrade their graphics card and their RAM ($300+ the price of Windows). And most users don't like to build their own boxes or install cards, so they go out and buy a new one.
And while you SAY it wasn't a disaster, it played out as a 'media disaster' for them and ended up hurting them. All they would have to have is more of the same. So for all those people who DIDN'T buy VISTA (or who downgraded to XP), this is going to be a shock for them all over again that they are going to need new hardware for the new OS. Because they just aren't going to have the money.
And considering that every Microsoft product requires new hardware, the chances that software manufacturers will embrace when is doubtful as they will be waiting to see what consumers will be doing this time around and harware manufacturer will be waiting as well.
Because during a recession/depression, people are tightening their belts. Statistics already show that people are not spending and have already done their nesting spending and are putting everything else into the bank in case something terrible happens which is causing the economy even further troubles.
So who is left to buy their OS (which most likely will require a new computer as they always do)? Not consumers as they are hurting. Not businesses as they are cash strapped. Not the government as they are tryiong to make up for a deficit.
I say good luck getting those sales. This one may be a good OS (*cough* recycled VISTA *cough*) but it will most likely fail on release due to the economic collapse.
Correct but I have no idea what kind of homework he is doing or what he is trying to protect so I stated it all.
I agree. But one would hope a person shows some intellect in these matters.
However the argument can be made that if you rubber stamp everything including your 'hello world' and math assignment. The teacher will just stop looking after awhile and think you to have an overblown ego so that when something actually patentable comes across his desk, he will completely miss it.
Best to have them think you a fool when they are hunting for genius's.
Thats only in the case that the school is giving you a free ride. In which case you are selling your soul. However, you do have a bargaining chip and can negotiate got that far because other schools want you too. Cross out the sections you don't like, have a lawyer present to discuss the terms, etc etc. They do negotiate if they want you on board.
At the top of every project and homework assignment, stamp it 'patent pending, TM 2008 [your name]. All rights reserved' Its annoying but your teachers get the idea. Some teachers may give you crap but others will most likely think it a good idea and some students may even follow your lead.
If you are working on a masters project, you may find it hard to get your professors to sign an NDA however.
Exactly. This is how Ballmer goes hunting for new employees. If he throws the chair too hard and damages the cerebral matter, he gets upper management instead of a new developer.
Critical fail on the 'chair duck'
Lets review that list keeping in mind the recession/depression going on GLOBALLY:
* Productivity Software (Office): Easily replaced with OpenOffice which is compatible with Office/Excel. * Workstating Operating System: Most of which did not and will not switch to Vista and new machines will not be being purchased during a recession. * Video game consoles: Sales low and ongoing lawsuit. * Server operating systems: Not very dominant. Check Netcraft, they have 20% of top 100 domain hosts. Beyond that during a recession, Linux and BSD systems start getting swapped in for Microsoft systems. * Database software: Mysql is the number 1 database system out there. And note said recession. If they CAN swap out expensive database licenses, they will. * Exchange (e-mail software? Whatever the hell you wanna call it): Probably the only thing that will keep them going. OpenExchange and others will pick up a bit here and people will avoid upgrading licenses but this is one that enterprises and medium sized businesses will not do without. * MSNBC: What? Who? Huh? How is this a money maker at all? Notice the NBC part? They only make a portion of that money and not that much.
I've seen Wal-mart's setup. They started off rinky dink, farmed some stuff out, tried to recover and are a half assed mess. I've had to work with their corp HQ. They're retards. And if you have anything to do with the mess they call an infrastructure then it explains alot. It alos would explain why you would throw so many Oracle server out there when you don't need them. Got more money than brains. It's why their network is constantly going down and why Amazon kicks their ass (ie my former employer and who I was an original member of from 95-97). Try dropping another name on me junior... I'm not even close to impressed.
Yes... a telecom is such a small little company. The entire internet only is our backbone. So I fail to hear the name of your company yet? Whats that big ass company with HUNDREDS of Oracle servers? :)
No, I'm afraid you are making an ass of yourself. You stated 100 Oracle servers (not 100 Oracle databases). 100 Oracle databases is understandable, but 100 Oracle servers does not redeem you as someone who knows what you are doing unless you are running the National Archives and even then, you would be running a cluster with replication and not 100 separate server instances. Your statement is an obvious exageration and/or clearly shows your lack of knowledge in database administration. If your statement is true, then you don't have a clue hat you are doing, and you should be using replication and clustering to do what you needed to be doing to scale to an enterprise level . I say this because I used to work for a telecom and we used Oracle AND MySQL side by side and never did we even come close to needing 100 Oracle servers... LOLZ! There is nobody in this world who needs to do that unless they are doing something horribly wrong. I'm actually in the process of replacing someone like you who did something similar. Tell me where you work so I can stop on by and pay them a visit next.
And this site is full of engineers; YOU zealots just come along and make us look bad.
MySQL has alot more community support, better modules and better integration into projects plus is far easier to get support. It has this mainly because it was the first to achieve such large success as a database server for web servers. This and it's ability to use multiple engines on the backend (HEAP, MyIsam, InnoDB, etc). I'm aware of PostGreSQL but it has it's own limitations in comparison to MySQL and is lacking in number of projects and modules that support it. It is progressing but when pitching an open source DB to a company, they will always want to go with the most commonly used and most widely supported product.
This means nothing. For one, you are obviously exaggerating (100 Oracle servers???) and two, that MySQL server could be one cluster and handling 100 terabytes of data transfers like at my old telecom vs just data storage on the Oracle machines. This would imply that the MySQL server are doing the workload of 100 Oracle servers... so I would ask what your point is of pointing out the number of servers and not their workload?
... we just use them where we need too. The right tool for the job. Unfortunately, Windows devs and sys admins believe their companies marketing hype and think their platform is the right tool for EVERY JOB ... as you seem to be under the delusion of.
The fact that you think this is a site made up by open source zealots shows your bias (read said sig). We all use Macs, Linux and Windows here (well maybe you don't and hence you shouldn't wear that engineering title)
Stop smoking the Microsoft crack pipe for a couple seconds and think for yourself. Every tool has a use and not every tool is good for everything as you are implying. Some tools just naturally are better at certain things and Linux and open source just happen to make better servers. Microsoft happens to suck as a server, Linux happens to suck as a desktop. I wouldn't deploy either for either if I didn't have to. I of course use Linux for MY desktop at work but there is no way in hell I would have a whole company deploying it. And we use Microsoft for exchange server but I have never seen a stable Microsoft server in my life in comparison to Linux server which you can 'set and forget' for months.
It's a harsh fact. Some things are just better at some things than others. Windows is great at playing games though. You should be proud of that, right?
Considering the fact that you are an anonymous coward that doesn't quote any sources and that MySQL is the number 1 database for web servers (been that way for the last couple years) I highly suspect you are spouting FUD and by 'last couple companies', you merely mean 'last couple Microsoft campuses'.
You do realize that this is a engineering website for computer scientists right? Don't you have an Xbox you should be playing with?
I know alot of people who use the 'fortune 500' index as their only index... But it means very little when you use it as your only barometer. Fortune 500 companies typically don't understand technology and move very slowly and purchase contracts with technology companys. They used to work solely with Sun, Novell, Cisco so I wouldn't be surprised to see large Microsoft numbers in the fortune 500. The fortune 500 also makes up a very SMALL percentage of the overall market and does not reflect the market in general so using it as your ONLY barometer is incredibly skewed and unbalanced.
I work for a unnamed financial company who is most likely one of them, and guess what we are in the process of doing? Switching our IVR systems to Asterisk, moving databases to MySQL and switching Microsoft servers to Linux. I pointed the company to several vendors who provide support (Sun, Canonical/Redhat, Digium) and they are pleased in the fact that they are able to cut costs by about a HUNDRED THOUSAND A YEAR... and thats just for starters. This has given them a taste for what else they can move to open source.
So don't let the fortune 500 numbers (which as I stated are a small percentage of the actual server market) skew what the actual market uses. What they choose to use is based upon the fact that they are large behemoths and have to have lots of other companies servicing them... like lampreys cleaning the barnacles off a bloated whale. They are not agile and have to have those other companies servicing them. This is not how most companies work and as a result, they are not good reflections of the industry.