Or it could be that just like the rest of the design, Dell simply ripped off the simplicity of the iPod's OS.
Let's not underestimate the power of being the second mover in the market folks. The ability to simply copy without a great deal of R&D makes things cheap. Dell has never been a real innovative company--just one that waits until the market tells them what to build.
Find someone qualified to write an article such as this for a major publication that *doesn't* have an agenda and I'll be impressed. The relatively small number of viable operating systems and the great disparity between them means that most people have a distinct preference. It's called differentiation--something Apple and Microsoft both know quite a bit about.
So Pogue reviewing OSX is fine with me. He's doesn't take everything in a glossy magazine as gospel and presents an effective look at things.
It's an interesting article that prompted some thinking on my part. Before Microsoft was so prevalent in the server world they touted interoperability with other systems through products such as SNA Server. ODBC was about interoperability as well. Somewhere along the line they gained enough market share to have no need to operate with other technology so they put fewer resources into working well with others. Instead they decided to spend more to make their products the prominent technology for *EVERY* computer need.
That brings us to today. Microsoft does not seek interoperability for the sake of its customers. Instead, they speak as if they believe in interoperability so the Justice Deparment believes they play nicely. They seek to give enough interoperability to competitors to keep them alive but not enough to make them a viable option in the marketplace. The only thing Microsoft desires is to have enough competition to complain about publicly but not enough to be forced to change course to give the customer what they want.
It sounds simple, but in reality moving to an x86 platform doesn't make sense from a technical nor business stance.
First, it's not as simple as recompiling a few things at the "higher layers." All of Apple's partners would have to port their applications as well. Porting apps is not as simple as you'd like to think--see the OpenOffice port to OSX.
Second, moving to commodity hardware of x86 would turn Apple into just another software company. Apple very much is a hardware company and its the marriage of that hardware with exceptional software that makes their advocates voracious in their support.
AMD has nice stuff but if Apple were to use their processors they would be proprietary and for use by Apple only. The processor would be designed and built from the ground up for Apple--sharing next to nothing with AMD's other offerings.
So for now, let's just be happy that AMD and Apple both have cool stuff.
G5, Athlon64...any way you go it's an alternative to Intel. I think the importance isn't which is quicker but that they both offer serious alternative solutions to Intel which forces everyone to innovate. Both companies deserve credit for working toward better solutions for customers.
Putting a computer in a rack does not make it server-class. Nor does standing a computer on a desk make it a desktop. Further, even if the price is wrong for the Dell cluster, which it is, then you end up with a different calculation for value. The real cost of the cluster was $3 million or so. So, for 60% of the price of the VT cluster you get 25% of the processing capability. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you still paid too much for that Dell cluster.
In the same way Microsoft decided they would try to be all things to all people, Dell appears to have its heart set on dominating all things electronic. An iPod wannabe, a flat-screen TV, and other home electronics? Microsoft once sold operating systems. Then came an office suite, servers, mice, games, ERP suites, and now a fabulous media center for the whole family.
I'll stick to my iPod...
Been there...done that.
on
The Bionic Office
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I worked for a place with all these amenities plus the view was of the ocean. That's right...we were 6 feet from white sand and blue waves.
At first, the space was incredible, the free drinks, groovy toys, and high-powered colleagues were great. Everyone got along and the work being done was of the highest quality. Everything was humming along.
What the struggle became however was burnout. While it seems really groovy to have all kinds of cool things they were all just ways to keep us there rather than being at home with our families. Sure we would frag a little, have a beer, and hang out for an hour a day. We'd also end up leaving the office well after most of our families had gone to bed.
There's nothing about this article worthy of my praise. This is old hat and not as well thought out as it's made out to be--in the end this crew will be no more or less productive, happy, or able than all the other companies like mine that failed doing the same thing.
Contrary to popular belief, those building supercomputers don't just run down to the local CompUSA and pick out the one they like best. I'm quite sure that these folks did their homework and looked at the various options.
Buying good hardware from a reputable company that commits to helping you meet your goals should never be shunned by a bunch of people who have never been faced with building one of the three fastest supercomputers in the educational world. If any of those people want to critique this purchase then I'm listening.
Everyone screws with benchmarks so don't start that crap. Wanna whine about the price? Then buy a cheap x86 box and run Linux or Windows. Just because you do fine with something like that doesn't mean the G5 isn't a fantastic piece of equipment and well worth the price. Wanna complain that it's propietary hardware and the limited software selection? Have you looked at your precious Linux recently? It may be open but most the software flat out sucks. The hardware may be abundant but that doesn't make it good.
None of those things make the G5 bad. It may not be ideal for everyone but then again neither is a PC and Linux. You damn bigots...
Anyone remember what happened to AOL when it decided it wanted to be everything to everyone? My thought is the more Microsoft puts its efforts into doing everything the less time it has to fight the serious challenges its core business faces.
While they're at it I hope they do try to one-up Google, out-Mac the folks at Apple, attempt to corner the virtual machine market, destroy open-source, and run Oracle out of business. If they get so side-tracked as to think they can beat everyone, then collectively there's a chance.
The big losers here are going to be the vendors of large systems running on MS SQL and their customers. A good example would be some of the major ERP/CRM vendors who run on top of MS SQL. Those companies also are going to be targets of lawsuits. It most likely will not be the small shops who purchased MS SQL that will be hunted.
Just hold tight until Wednesday. Apple is releasing new iBooks and TiBooks. The new iBooks will start at $999 and TiBooks at $2299. They'll both get quicker processors and in some cases larger harddrives. No Superdrives this time around so you might have to wait to burn DVDs.
To me it doesn't make much sense to compare these two movies nor do I think there's anything to be gained from insinuating George Lucas needs to learn something from Spider-Man.
First, they are two separate genres. Sam Raimi needed to live up to the expectations set by the comic book. George Lucas needs to live up to his previous films. Lucas has to create the material where Raimi needs more to interpret. Lucas doesn't always succeed at not ripping off others but still, he has to create his material. This doesn't lessen Raimi's work--in many ways it is more difficult to interpret.
Second, film is art. Art shouldn't be derivative of what is "hot" at the box office. If Star Wars was derivative of what was being shown at the time we'd have a much different film. If anything, Lucas should *ignore* other films and get back to making a story that interests him. Star Wars interested him--Episode I sought to provide something for everyone else.
I have to disagree, as always, with Katz. Lucas needs to look inward and not to Campbell, Raimi, or even Stan Lee for help with his picture.
Today in breaking news Microsoft alleged that it was technically impossible to remove WindowsXP from *any* computer. Further, they insist that WindowsXP cannot be removed from small children that have been exposed to their products or other software products that might have been located on the same shelf. They also announced that WindowsXP will be shipping as the default OS of all Mr. Coffee brand coffeemakers and blenders:)
Regardless of what Microsoft says, anyone who works in IT knows that you can essentially achieve anything you can dream if given enough time and money. They *can* remove IE from their operating system should they decide to do it. Would it cost them alot of money? Would it cost them more than they earned by driving competition from the marketplace?
Seems to me like this suit is something they foresaw so they built themselves a defense by integrating their browser into the OS just in case this argument was needed...
I have a hard time believing this story. Most of you probably feel the same way. While Slashdot isn't a primary news provider like CNN it is considered by many of us a place to get information. Now, how in the world can I be expected to believe anything Mr. Katz has to say after this? His reputation is shot...
Let's think about things for a second. If I opened up a fast food restaurant called "McDonald's Sucks" should I be forced to change my name? Yes.
If I decided to call my bookstore "Barnes and Noble Bites" should I be forced to pick a new name? Yes.
If I decided to starta phone company called "AT&T Blows" should I be forced to use something else? Yes.
Then why shouldn't the same standard be applied to websites? Why shouldn't trademarks be protected? I'm not a fan of being hampered in life by the law, being oppressed by monopolistic behavior, or having commercialism shoved down my throat. However, I believe in the right to have my own name and not have someone slander said name.
This is a fantastic idea but just like other things it means that parents and people sensitive to things have to use it. Most likely, instead of using these tools they will just complain about the content in the programs instead...
While I firmly believe that the law does indeed protect students who invent things from having their innovations stolen, my concern lies elsewhere. The collegiate community has long been free from many concerns that private businesses must contend with in regards to innovations. I would hate to see this bring the level of freedom colleges have to a substandard level. Graduate students signing contracts and and more lawyers...what a horrible thought.
Anyway, I would just like to caution those applying this law in college settings to make the system the least cumbersome as possible. Free-thinking is the backbone of our collegiate system.
There are tons of tools and techniques to developing software. Best practices abound in fact. Two things present in every form of good software development are analysis/design and project management. If you do the work in analysis and design you will be capable of building a good estimate.
That's only half the battle. Once a project is underway, keeping scope in check is critical so you need good project management. If you build a great estimate through analysis and design and then throw it out the window when you start writing code, you'll never have a good estimate.
Where do major providers like Microsoft and even Mozilla go wrong? Simple, they either jump in and start coding before they've completely settled on what they're building or they change their mind in development about what they're building. Either way, it screws up delivery dates.
While we espouse our need to breakup Microsoft we have overlooked our great need to sue for negligence and false advertising. Their products do not perform safely nor with the diligence we as consumers need. This is another case of a lack of thought and concern put into a consumer product. If Passport were a vehicle or food product, the manufacturer would have been sued for negligence.
In the last year I've been noticing the spirits of more former employees haunting offices. I come across old photos, badges, books, an occasional mug that says, "Scott" in script letters. Spoooky....
Let's face the facts: wireless is another tool to have in the toolbox but it is not the second coming of Berners-Lee. It has its place and its reasons for use. There are applications and situations that will demand it and others will not. It will not, contrary to popular belief, revolutionize business. It will greatly improve some aspects of business but it is not going to change the way we live.
Now I'm not saying it's unimportant. On the contrary, it will be exceptionally important. This however is similar to rails--without demand for trains and things to be carried somewhere, it's useless. It may be a better way to do things but it is nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
Or it could be that just like the rest of the design, Dell simply ripped off the simplicity of the iPod's OS.
Let's not underestimate the power of being the second mover in the market folks. The ability to simply copy without a great deal of R&D makes things cheap. Dell has never been a real innovative company--just one that waits until the market tells them what to build.
Find someone qualified to write an article such as this for a major publication that *doesn't* have an agenda and I'll be impressed. The relatively small number of viable operating systems and the great disparity between them means that most people have a distinct preference. It's called differentiation--something Apple and Microsoft both know quite a bit about.
So Pogue reviewing OSX is fine with me. He's doesn't take everything in a glossy magazine as gospel and presents an effective look at things.
It's an interesting article that prompted some thinking on my part. Before Microsoft was so prevalent in the server world they touted interoperability with other systems through products such as SNA Server. ODBC was about interoperability as well. Somewhere along the line they gained enough market share to have no need to operate with other technology so they put fewer resources into working well with others. Instead they decided to spend more to make their products the prominent technology for *EVERY* computer need.
That brings us to today. Microsoft does not seek interoperability for the sake of its customers. Instead, they speak as if they believe in interoperability so the Justice Deparment believes they play nicely. They seek to give enough interoperability to competitors to keep them alive but not enough to make them a viable option in the marketplace. The only thing Microsoft desires is to have enough competition to complain about publicly but not enough to be forced to change course to give the customer what they want.
It sounds simple, but in reality moving to an x86 platform doesn't make sense from a technical nor business stance.
First, it's not as simple as recompiling a few things at the "higher layers." All of Apple's partners would have to port their applications as well. Porting apps is not as simple as you'd like to think--see the OpenOffice port to OSX.
Second, moving to commodity hardware of x86 would turn Apple into just another software company. Apple very much is a hardware company and its the marriage of that hardware with exceptional software that makes their advocates voracious in their support.
AMD has nice stuff but if Apple were to use their processors they would be proprietary and for use by Apple only. The processor would be designed and built from the ground up for Apple--sharing next to nothing with AMD's other offerings.
So for now, let's just be happy that AMD and Apple both have cool stuff.
G5, Athlon64...any way you go it's an alternative to Intel. I think the importance isn't which is quicker but that they both offer serious alternative solutions to Intel which forces everyone to innovate. Both companies deserve credit for working toward better solutions for customers.
Putting a computer in a rack does not make it server-class. Nor does standing a computer on a desk make it a desktop. Further, even if the price is wrong for the Dell cluster, which it is, then you end up with a different calculation for value. The real cost of the cluster was $3 million or so. So, for 60% of the price of the VT cluster you get 25% of the processing capability. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you still paid too much for that Dell cluster.
How about "Buy a Kia get a free Dell DJ!" Looks a little more comparable. A cheap plastic knockoff for a cheap plastic knockoff.
In the same way Microsoft decided they would try to be all things to all people, Dell appears to have its heart set on dominating all things electronic. An iPod wannabe, a flat-screen TV, and other home electronics? Microsoft once sold operating systems. Then came an office suite, servers, mice, games, ERP suites, and now a fabulous media center for the whole family.
I'll stick to my iPod...
I worked for a place with all these amenities plus the view was of the ocean. That's right...we were 6 feet from white sand and blue waves.
At first, the space was incredible, the free drinks, groovy toys, and high-powered colleagues were great. Everyone got along and the work being done was of the highest quality. Everything was humming along.
What the struggle became however was burnout. While it seems really groovy to have all kinds of cool things they were all just ways to keep us there rather than being at home with our families. Sure we would frag a little, have a beer, and hang out for an hour a day. We'd also end up leaving the office well after most of our families had gone to bed.
There's nothing about this article worthy of my praise. This is old hat and not as well thought out as it's made out to be--in the end this crew will be no more or less productive, happy, or able than all the other companies like mine that failed doing the same thing.
Contrary to popular belief, those building supercomputers don't just run down to the local CompUSA and pick out the one they like best. I'm quite sure that these folks did their homework and looked at the various options.
Buying good hardware from a reputable company that commits to helping you meet your goals should never be shunned by a bunch of people who have never been faced with building one of the three fastest supercomputers in the educational world. If any of those people want to critique this purchase then I'm listening.
Everyone screws with benchmarks so don't start that crap. Wanna whine about the price? Then buy a cheap x86 box and run Linux or Windows. Just because you do fine with something like that doesn't mean the G5 isn't a fantastic piece of equipment and well worth the price. Wanna complain that it's propietary hardware and the limited software selection? Have you looked at your precious Linux recently? It may be open but most the software flat out sucks. The hardware may be abundant but that doesn't make it good.
None of those things make the G5 bad. It may not be ideal for everyone but then again neither is a PC and Linux. You damn bigots...
While they're at it I hope they do try to one-up Google, out-Mac the folks at Apple, attempt to corner the virtual machine market, destroy open-source, and run Oracle out of business. If they get so side-tracked as to think they can beat everyone, then collectively there's a chance.
The big losers here are going to be the vendors of large systems running on MS SQL and their customers. A good example would be some of the major ERP/CRM vendors who run on top of MS SQL. Those companies also are going to be targets of lawsuits. It most likely will not be the small shops who purchased MS SQL that will be hunted.
I'm glad my systems don't run on MS SQL.
Just hold tight until Wednesday. Apple is releasing new iBooks and TiBooks. The new iBooks will start at $999 and TiBooks at $2299. They'll both get quicker processors and in some cases larger harddrives. No Superdrives this time around so you might have to wait to burn DVDs.
To me it doesn't make much sense to compare these two movies nor do I think there's anything to be gained from insinuating George Lucas needs to learn something from Spider-Man.
First, they are two separate genres. Sam Raimi needed to live up to the expectations set by the comic book. George Lucas needs to live up to his previous films. Lucas has to create the material where Raimi needs more to interpret. Lucas doesn't always succeed at not ripping off others but still, he has to create his material. This doesn't lessen Raimi's work--in many ways it is more difficult to interpret.
Second, film is art. Art shouldn't be derivative of what is "hot" at the box office. If Star Wars was derivative of what was being shown at the time we'd have a much different film. If anything, Lucas should *ignore* other films and get back to making a story that interests him. Star Wars interested him--Episode I sought to provide something for everyone else.
I have to disagree, as always, with Katz. Lucas needs to look inward and not to Campbell, Raimi, or even Stan Lee for help with his picture.
Today in breaking news Microsoft alleged that it was technically impossible to remove WindowsXP from *any* computer. Further, they insist that WindowsXP cannot be removed from small children that have been exposed to their products or other software products that might have been located on the same shelf. They also announced that WindowsXP will be shipping as the default OS of all Mr. Coffee brand coffeemakers and blenders :)
Geez...now even our hardware isn't safe.
Regardless of what Microsoft says, anyone who works in IT knows that you can essentially achieve anything you can dream if given enough time and money. They *can* remove IE from their operating system should they decide to do it. Would it cost them alot of money? Would it cost them more than they earned by driving competition from the marketplace?
Seems to me like this suit is something they foresaw so they built themselves a defense by integrating their browser into the OS just in case this argument was needed...
I have a hard time believing this story. Most of you probably feel the same way. While Slashdot isn't a primary news provider like CNN it is considered by many of us a place to get information. Now, how in the world can I be expected to believe anything Mr. Katz has to say after this? His reputation is shot...
Let's think about things for a second. If I opened up a fast food restaurant called "McDonald's Sucks" should I be forced to change my name? Yes.
If I decided to call my bookstore "Barnes and Noble Bites" should I be forced to pick a new name? Yes.
If I decided to starta phone company called "AT&T Blows" should I be forced to use something else? Yes.
Then why shouldn't the same standard be applied to websites? Why shouldn't trademarks be protected? I'm not a fan of being hampered in life by the law, being oppressed by monopolistic behavior, or having commercialism shoved down my throat. However, I believe in the right to have my own name and not have someone slander said name.
This is a fantastic idea but just like other things it means that parents and people sensitive to things have to use it. Most likely, instead of using these tools they will just complain about the content in the programs instead...
While I firmly believe that the law does indeed protect students who invent things from having their innovations stolen, my concern lies elsewhere. The collegiate community has long been free from many concerns that private businesses must contend with in regards to innovations. I would hate to see this bring the level of freedom colleges have to a substandard level. Graduate students signing contracts and and more lawyers...what a horrible thought.
Anyway, I would just like to caution those applying this law in college settings to make the system the least cumbersome as possible. Free-thinking is the backbone of our collegiate system.
There are tons of tools and techniques to developing software. Best practices abound in fact. Two things present in every form of good software development are analysis/design and project management. If you do the work in analysis and design you will be capable of building a good estimate.
That's only half the battle. Once a project is underway, keeping scope in check is critical so you need good project management. If you build a great estimate through analysis and design and then throw it out the window when you start writing code, you'll never have a good estimate.
Where do major providers like Microsoft and even Mozilla go wrong? Simple, they either jump in and start coding before they've completely settled on what they're building or they change their mind in development about what they're building. Either way, it screws up delivery dates.
While we espouse our need to breakup Microsoft we have overlooked our great need to sue for negligence and false advertising. Their products do not perform safely nor with the diligence we as consumers need. This is another case of a lack of thought and concern put into a consumer product. If Passport were a vehicle or food product, the manufacturer would have been sued for negligence.
In the last year I've been noticing the spirits of more former employees haunting offices. I come across old photos, badges, books, an occasional mug that says, "Scott" in script letters. Spoooky....
Let's face the facts: wireless is another tool to have in the toolbox but it is not the second coming of Berners-Lee. It has its place and its reasons for use. There are applications and situations that will demand it and others will not. It will not, contrary to popular belief, revolutionize business. It will greatly improve some aspects of business but it is not going to change the way we live.
Now I'm not saying it's unimportant. On the contrary, it will be exceptionally important. This however is similar to rails--without demand for trains and things to be carried somewhere, it's useless. It may be a better way to do things but it is nothing more.