Or you could just buy this [apple.com]. For $3k plus a couple of thousand depending on how you want to configure it (it's cheaper if you add the memory and hard drive yourself from newegg), you can get a dual quad core with two ethernet ports and pretty decent graphics.
Alternatively, grab yourself a Dell Precision 5500 for the same 8 cores at 2/3 the price. Or, if you don't mind slumming it a little, an XPS 9000 only has 4 cores in a box, but works out at around twice the cores/$ as the Mac Pro.
That's exactly what he said. 0-40 MPH is very easy -- even a MCSE admin could set it up to do that. But once you get to a complicated AD environment you will have a very hard time.
Except the more accurate analogy would be 0-150. Ie: perfectly fine out of the box for the vast majority of environments.
But it can be easily summed up for all MS "technologies": microsoft doesn't scale.
Amazing then, isn't it, that so many huge companies manage to run their infrastructure on them (exhibit A: Microsoft itself).
Every outage you read about involves a failure in a feature of the datacenter that was not redundant and was assumed to not need to be redundant... assumed *incorrectly*.
IME, most outages are due to software or process failures, not hardware.
I am going to give you the following link. It gives details about NUMEROUS warnings and STATEMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that detail their concerns about planes being used as weapons.
"No-one" in the context of my comment was referring to the people on the plane. If they had the slightest inkling of what was going to happen, then the terr'ists would never have even gotten into the cockpit.
For just that reason, it's not going to happen again. The rules of the game have fundamentally changed, and a couple of hundred people on a hijacked plane are no longer going to sit back and see what happens, as they had always done prior to 9/11.
I don't want to get into the whole "dabating 9/11" but in my opinion it's ludicrous to suggest that nobody had suspected that could be done. I know that Bush and different people liked to say that, but I find it ridiculous in light of the evidence AND the fact that the people at NORAD and those who are on guard against this sort of thing aren't stupid. A kid can figure out that a plane can be deliberately crashed into something and it's going to make a mess.
"No-one" in the context of my comment was referring to the people on the plane. If they had the slightest inkling of what was going to happen, then the terr'ists would never have even gotten into the cockpit.
For just that reason, it's not going to happen again. The rules of the game have fundamentally changed, and a couple of hundred people on a hijacked plane are no longer going to sit back and see what happens, as they had always done prior to 9/11.
Microsoft has years and years of experience pulling this stunt. They've done it over and over again in multiple markets (OS, and office suites are the two obvious ones. I remember when Windows cost $99 and office cost $99, and you could use that copy of windows and office on your work computer and as many "home" computers as you wanted. They were never free, but those products have far exceeded even health care in inflation over the last 15 years. In 1995 I spent a total of $200 and had legal licenses of the latest OS and office suite for 3 computers. Today that same licensing would cost me more than $3000, luckily I moved to linux in 2002.)
I can't remember this licensing arrangement ever being true for retail bought copies of Windows or Office. Do you have a link ?
However, where Microsoft wins out is that that isn't easy to roll out.
That's got to be a strong contender for "laughably inaccurate understatement of the year", right there.
The Linux's and BSD's of the world make you learn how the engine works first, but once you've got it figured out you still make it to 60MPH before MS does.
Bollocks. Even an entry level, nothing-but-the-MCSE Windows admin could setup an simple AD environment in a day or so. On the other hand, a highly qualified Linux admin is going to be messing around for a week (or more) to hack something equivalent together using LDAP, Kerberos, cfengine, et al, unless they're specialists in those tools.
This is before even getting into the ongoing maintainability of those systems. One is a standard cookie cutter deployment, easily understood by any remotely qualified Windows Admin. The other is a customised collection of puzzle pieces, held together with duct tape and string, that even "expert" level Linux admins will take days to fully understand.
The hack-fu bolt on permissions system that is group-policy is the only real "reason" and that is easily replicated using any number of tools (puppet, cfengine, SELinux policy etc etc) from the Unix world.
Whatever else they may be, those tools sure as hell don't qualify as "easy". Or, if they do, then Group Policy, etc qualify as "completely automated with complimentary blowjobs every day".
A secure OS would make sure that all code downloaded from the net is identified to the user as code downloaded from the net and its source/publisher, and a secure OS does not allow the downloaded code to execute until after the user has acknowledged that it is a downloaded program and given explicit permission.
Pointless. The user will give permission regardless of how many times you ask them if they're sure.
Obviously we need military and intelligence services; they shouldbe the best in the world, and we need security - but what happened on Sept 11th is ridiculous and NEVER should have happened - all of this bullshit about all of these simultaneous coincedences letting this occur, as well as there being drills occurring at the WTC and Pentagon that very morning for THAT exact scenario (that's a fact by the way, not some truther conspiracy bullshit - look into it if you doubt that)...
FFS. There is only one reason why the 9/11 attack succeeded, and it is exactly the same reason they will never work again:
No-one expect the hijackers to fly the planes into buildings.
1) How the hell was it possible for a hospital unit to have Windows on any of their computers in the first place? HIPAA compliance has been mandatory for many years now and there has been more than enough time to phase out Windows.
Which part of HIPAA do you think precludes using Windows ?
No, NT was born to (eventually) _replace_ OS/2. It was going to be OS/2 3.0. OS/2 2.x was going to be the "desktop OS" (developed primarily by IBM) and NT (then called NT OS/2) was going to be the "workstation/server OS" (developed primarily by Microsoft). This was exactly the same strategy that Microsoft followed with DOS-based Windows (3.11, Win9x) and NT, after the completely unexpected success of Windows 3.0 made it clear that OS/2 was a dead end.
NT wasn't built to replace OS/2, it was to spite IBM and cut IBM off at the pass and dominate not only home desktops but the business desktops as well.
By the time of the IBM/Microsoft "divorce" in 1992, the NT project was nearly 4 years old.
In some ways you could consider NT a fork of OS/2. NT still runs OS/2 1.1 binaries (at least Server 2003 does).
In no code-related way is NT a fork of OS/2. Even a cursory glance at their basic capabilities and fundamental design should make that obvious. OS/2 2.11, Warp, eComstation, etc are all part of the same family. NT is a completely independent design and implementation.
Windows NT could actual run OS/2 software up until version 4.0.
So ? Nothing I said disagrees with that.
My alarm system for my house is running OS/2 4.0 on an embedded 386 card with 6 meg of memory. Yes you read that right 6 meg of memory.
Perhaps you can expound on why you think the requirements of an embedded system are in way comparable to that of an interactive desktop system.
I have an IBM Model 80 386 that I occasionally boot too. It has OS/2 Warp 4 running in 4 meg of memory with a 200 Meg scsi drive. I have firefox version 2.0 that runs just fine.
See, the trick to effective bullshitting is not taking it too far and, well, you just did. Back in the day I used to know a lot of fellow Warp users, and not even the most rabid of them would try to argue that a 4MB machine was anything more than the absolute minimum. Heck, it was even tight for a 2.11 install.
OS/2 Warp 3.0 was released before Windows 95 was and had all the Multiuser, SMP capable fully 32 bit that you have mentioned about Windows NT... Well it was the same code base.
OS/2 - all the way to Warp 4 - still had 16 bit components (eg: the HPFS driver). None of the "common" versions of OS/2 were either multiuser, or supported SMP.
I think your memory of what Windows 95 could do and what OS/2 could do have been switched for the other. That is unless you just like to spread FUD and are a huge Windoze Fan Boy.
I'm pretty confident the closest you've ever been to desktop PC running OS/2 is reading about it on the intarwebs.
It certainly hasn't been my experience with the various major releases of OS X (10.2 through 10.6) - on the same hardware, each release has been faster.
The difference is that OS X was starting from such horrendously bad performance it didn't really have anywhere to go but up. It took literally *years* after the first OS X release before hardware _even existed_ that could run the (by then updated a couple of revisions) OS at all well, and a couple of years after that before "typical" hardware could do so.
No version of Windows has ever been that bad. Windows 95 was probably the worst in terms of relative hardware requirements, and even it was quite usable on 4-5 year old machines (that had been high-end in their day - fast 386s and slow 486s with 8MB RAM).
I worked at several computer stores back then and it was the exact opposite actually. Windows 95 would not run very well on a 486 unless you had at least 16MB RAM (where 4 and 8 was the standard back then) especially if you started adding more applications or device drivers.
The original Windows 95 release was quite usable in 8MB of RAM. It wasn't until IE4 beefed up the shell that 16MB+ became necessary.
At the same time, OS/2 basically required 16MB (you could limp by in 12MB), and NT4 20MB.
OS/2 Warp 4 had some wonderful applications and did very well on both 386 and 486, never crashed (it was more stable than most workstation UNIX back then) [...]
Sounds like you didn't actually use it much. The SIQ was a notorious OS/2 problem and would usually lock it up at least every couple of days (and that's if you weren't doing anything particularly interesting).
Between OS/2 and a properly setup Windows 95 system, without any 16-bit drivers or (to a lesser degree) programs, the stability difference was negligible - but Windows 95 ran equally well on 1/2 to 2/3 the hardware and had _vastly_ better compatibility.
OS/2 wasn't in the same category as Windows 95 - it was in the same category as Windows NT.
Rubbish. NT was substantially more advanced than OS/2. Multiuser, SMP capable, fully 32 bit, almost-a-microkernel, etc.
That is, after all, why it was originally built to replace OS/2.
OS/2 and Windows NT required much more memory than Windows 9x. Once you got an OS/2 machine up to >= 16Meg of memory, it was just fine.
Of course, Windows 95 delivered essentially equivalent functionality in half the RAM, and also while managing to deliver such "advanced" functionality as a dynamically sized disk cache.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. You can run lots of things that don't scale up by scaling out.
At what size organisation do you think AD is going to start having problem ?
Just because you can solve a problem by buying more hardware and spreading out doesn't mean there isn't a better way to do it.
Doesn't mean there is, either.
Or you could just buy this [apple.com]. For $3k plus a couple of thousand depending on how you want to configure it (it's cheaper if you add the memory and hard drive yourself from newegg), you can get a dual quad core with two ethernet ports and pretty decent graphics.
Alternatively, grab yourself a Dell Precision 5500 for the same 8 cores at 2/3 the price. Or, if you don't mind slumming it a little, an XPS 9000 only has 4 cores in a box, but works out at around twice the cores/$ as the Mac Pro.
Way to blame microsoft for the state deficit.
Dude, this is Slashdot. Microsoft is blamed for everything from the dog's flatulence to North Korea's nuclear program.
That's exactly what he said. 0-40 MPH is very easy -- even a MCSE admin could set it up to do that. But once you get to a complicated AD environment you will have a very hard time.
Except the more accurate analogy would be 0-150. Ie: perfectly fine out of the box for the vast majority of environments.
But it can be easily summed up for all MS "technologies": microsoft doesn't scale.
Amazing then, isn't it, that so many huge companies manage to run their infrastructure on them (exhibit A: Microsoft itself).
Why go with a huge, multiple 9's datacenter, when you can go the way of google, and have a RAID: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Datacenters..
Because most systems don't scale horizontally and most businesses don't have the resources of Google to create their own that do.
Every outage you read about involves a failure in a feature of the datacenter that was not redundant and was assumed to not need to be redundant... assumed *incorrectly*.
IME, most outages are due to software or process failures, not hardware.
I am going to give you the following link. It gives details about NUMEROUS warnings and STATEMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that detail their concerns about planes being used as weapons.
"No-one" in the context of my comment was referring to the people on the plane. If they had the slightest inkling of what was going to happen, then the terr'ists would never have even gotten into the cockpit.
For just that reason, it's not going to happen again. The rules of the game have fundamentally changed, and a couple of hundred people on a hijacked plane are no longer going to sit back and see what happens, as they had always done prior to 9/11.
I don't want to get into the whole "dabating 9/11" but in my opinion it's ludicrous to suggest that nobody had suspected that could be done. I know that Bush and different people liked to say that, but I find it ridiculous in light of the evidence AND the fact that the people at NORAD and those who are on guard against this sort of thing aren't stupid. A kid can figure out that a plane can be deliberately crashed into something and it's going to make a mess.
"No-one" in the context of my comment was referring to the people on the plane. If they had the slightest inkling of what was going to happen, then the terr'ists would never have even gotten into the cockpit.
For just that reason, it's not going to happen again. The rules of the game have fundamentally changed, and a couple of hundred people on a hijacked plane are no longer going to sit back and see what happens, as they had always done prior to 9/11.
Microsoft has years and years of experience pulling this stunt. They've done it over and over again in multiple markets (OS, and office suites are the two obvious ones. I remember when Windows cost $99 and office cost $99, and you could use that copy of windows and office on your work computer and as many "home" computers as you wanted. They were never free, but those products have far exceeded even health care in inflation over the last 15 years. In 1995 I spent a total of $200 and had legal licenses of the latest OS and office suite for 3 computers. Today that same licensing would cost me more than $3000, luckily I moved to linux in 2002.)
I can't remember this licensing arrangement ever being true for retail bought copies of Windows or Office. Do you have a link ?
Sorta my point everyone that says PCs are cheaper are looking at the $300 PC not the $800 real one. If you buy quality the prices are the same.
Entry-level 20" iMac + Applecare: $1368.
Dell Optiplex 360, E5300 CPU, 2GB RAM, 320GB hard disk, 20" screen: $650.
Dell Optiplex 760, E5300 CPU, 2GB RAM, 320GB hard disk, 20" screen: $790.
So a low-end office PC is, in fact, about half as much as a low-end office Mac. A mid-range office PC is less than 2/3 the cost.
Now, let's see what $1368 buys us from Dell:
Precision 3500, W3503 CPU, 4GB RAM, 250GB hard disk, 20" screen: $1385.
So for the same price as a bottom-end iMac, from Dell you get a Mac Pro workstation-class machine with nearly twice the performance.
However, where Microsoft wins out is that that isn't easy to roll out.
That's got to be a strong contender for "laughably inaccurate understatement of the year", right there.
The Linux's and BSD's of the world make you learn how the engine works first, but once you've got it figured out you still make it to 60MPH before MS does.
Bollocks. Even an entry level, nothing-but-the-MCSE Windows admin could setup an simple AD environment in a day or so. On the other hand, a highly qualified Linux admin is going to be messing around for a week (or more) to hack something equivalent together using LDAP, Kerberos, cfengine, et al, unless they're specialists in those tools.
This is before even getting into the ongoing maintainability of those systems. One is a standard cookie cutter deployment, easily understood by any remotely qualified Windows Admin. The other is a customised collection of puzzle pieces, held together with duct tape and string, that even "expert" level Linux admins will take days to fully understand.
The hack-fu bolt on permissions system that is group-policy is the only real "reason" and that is easily replicated using any number of tools (puppet, cfengine, SELinux policy etc etc) from the Unix world.
Whatever else they may be, those tools sure as hell don't qualify as "easy". Or, if they do, then Group Policy, etc qualify as "completely automated with complimentary blowjobs every day".
A secure OS would make sure that all code downloaded from the net is identified to the user as code downloaded from the net and its source/publisher, and a secure OS does not allow the downloaded code to execute until after the user has acknowledged that it is a downloaded program and given explicit permission.
Pointless. The user will give permission regardless of how many times you ask them if they're sure.
Obviously we need military and intelligence services; they shouldbe the best in the world, and we need security - but what happened on Sept 11th is ridiculous and NEVER should have happened - all of this bullshit about all of these simultaneous coincedences letting this occur, as well as there being drills occurring at the WTC and Pentagon that very morning for THAT exact scenario (that's a fact by the way, not some truther conspiracy bullshit - look into it if you doubt that)...
FFS. There is only one reason why the 9/11 attack succeeded, and it is exactly the same reason they will never work again:
No-one expect the hijackers to fly the planes into buildings.
1) How the hell was it possible for a hospital unit to have Windows on any of their computers in the first place? HIPAA compliance has been mandatory for many years now and there has been more than enough time to phase out Windows.
Which part of HIPAA do you think precludes using Windows ?
Don't you know about limited user rights? That prevents ANY installation of ANY program.
You don't need to install software for it to run and do nasty things.
And name 3 people you know who run raid-5 on their personal PCs, and I'll show you 3 guys who can't afford an SSD drive.
Huh ? That's like saying show me 3 people who have a nice pair of running shoes and I'll show you 3 guys who can't afford a car.
Um..... NT was born from OS/2 and Dave Cutler.
No, NT was born to (eventually) _replace_ OS/2. It was going to be OS/2 3.0. OS/2 2.x was going to be the "desktop OS" (developed primarily by IBM) and NT (then called NT OS/2) was going to be the "workstation/server OS" (developed primarily by Microsoft). This was exactly the same strategy that Microsoft followed with DOS-based Windows (3.11, Win9x) and NT, after the completely unexpected success of Windows 3.0 made it clear that OS/2 was a dead end.
NT wasn't built to replace OS/2, it was to spite IBM and cut IBM off at the pass and dominate not only home desktops but the business desktops as well.
By the time of the IBM/Microsoft "divorce" in 1992, the NT project was nearly 4 years old.
In some ways you could consider NT a fork of OS/2. NT still runs OS/2 1.1 binaries (at least Server 2003 does).
In no code-related way is NT a fork of OS/2. Even a cursory glance at their basic capabilities and fundamental design should make that obvious. OS/2 2.11, Warp, eComstation, etc are all part of the same family. NT is a completely independent design and implementation.
Windows NT could actual run OS/2 software up until version 4.0.
So ? Nothing I said disagrees with that.
My alarm system for my house is running OS/2 4.0 on an embedded 386 card with 6 meg of memory. Yes you read that right 6 meg of memory.
Perhaps you can expound on why you think the requirements of an embedded system are in way comparable to that of an interactive desktop system.
I have an IBM Model 80 386 that I occasionally boot too. It has OS/2 Warp 4 running in 4 meg of memory with a 200 Meg scsi drive. I have firefox version 2.0 that runs just fine.
See, the trick to effective bullshitting is not taking it too far and, well, you just did. Back in the day I used to know a lot of fellow Warp users, and not even the most rabid of them would try to argue that a 4MB machine was anything more than the absolute minimum. Heck, it was even tight for a 2.11 install.
OS/2 Warp 3.0 was released before Windows 95 was and had all the Multiuser, SMP capable fully 32 bit that you have mentioned about Windows NT... Well it was the same code base.
OS/2 - all the way to Warp 4 - still had 16 bit components (eg: the HPFS driver). None of the "common" versions of OS/2 were either multiuser, or supported SMP.
I think your memory of what Windows 95 could do and what OS/2 could do have been switched for the other. That is unless you just like to spread FUD and are a huge Windoze Fan Boy.
I'm pretty confident the closest you've ever been to desktop PC running OS/2 is reading about it on the intarwebs.
It certainly hasn't been my experience with the various major releases of OS X (10.2 through 10.6) - on the same hardware, each release has been faster.
The difference is that OS X was starting from such horrendously bad performance it didn't really have anywhere to go but up. It took literally *years* after the first OS X release before hardware _even existed_ that could run the (by then updated a couple of revisions) OS at all well, and a couple of years after that before "typical" hardware could do so.
No version of Windows has ever been that bad. Windows 95 was probably the worst in terms of relative hardware requirements, and even it was quite usable on 4-5 year old machines (that had been high-end in their day - fast 386s and slow 486s with 8MB RAM).
Then Windows 95 came out a year later, based on largely the same codebase [...]
If you think this, then you're probably not in a position to be making comments.
I worked at several computer stores back then and it was the exact opposite actually. Windows 95 would not run very well on a 486 unless you had at least 16MB RAM (where 4 and 8 was the standard back then) especially if you started adding more applications or device drivers.
The original Windows 95 release was quite usable in 8MB of RAM. It wasn't until IE4 beefed up the shell that 16MB+ became necessary.
At the same time, OS/2 basically required 16MB (you could limp by in 12MB), and NT4 20MB.
OS/2 Warp 4 had some wonderful applications and did very well on both 386 and 486, never crashed (it was more stable than most workstation UNIX back then) [...]
Sounds like you didn't actually use it much. The SIQ was a notorious OS/2 problem and would usually lock it up at least every couple of days (and that's if you weren't doing anything particularly interesting).
Between OS/2 and a properly setup Windows 95 system, without any 16-bit drivers or (to a lesser degree) programs, the stability difference was negligible - but Windows 95 ran equally well on 1/2 to 2/3 the hardware and had _vastly_ better compatibility.
OS/2 wasn't in the same category as Windows 95 - it was in the same category as Windows NT.
Rubbish. NT was substantially more advanced than OS/2. Multiuser, SMP capable, fully 32 bit, almost-a-microkernel, etc.
That is, after all, why it was originally built to replace OS/2.
OS/2 and Windows NT required much more memory than Windows 9x. Once you got an OS/2 machine up to >= 16Meg of memory, it was just fine.
Of course, Windows 95 delivered essentially equivalent functionality in half the RAM, and also while managing to deliver such "advanced" functionality as a dynamically sized disk cache.
Windows in any form has always been a PIG on any machine that didn't have enough memory to run a proper Unix.
Which "proper UNIX" are you thinking of that was going to deliver the features of Windows 95, on a 386 with 8MB of RAM, in 1995 ?
If you think proper spelling is important (I am not saying that it isn't) then you should make a case, not a complaint.
He did:
Just because words sound the same when spoken aloud doesn't mean they describe the same thing. Example: too != to != two, etc.