Modern OSes may feel like they run somewhat slower on today's hardware than older OSes felt on yesterday's hardware, but today's OSes also do a lot more. I've yet to crash OS X, or even a single program save the ones I've written; yet Win95, when I used it, regularly gave me the blue screen of death. Today I have true multi-tasking, advanced networking, plug-n-play, Expose, and a host of other features that make my computing experience generally more plesant and productive. I can do much more much faster on my computer today -- whether I use XP, OS X, or Debian -- than I could ten or five or even three years ago. One man's bloat is another man's feature, and while I'm not going to defend every item included in OS X, I will say I'm impressed with it. Before OS X, I laughed at MacOS as a toy OS and would never have bought an Apple product. Now, Apple has a modern, impressive OS with advanced features and an excellent security record. And while 10.0 was apparently slow (I never used it, so I can't say first hand), every iteration has been faster on the same hardware. Anyway, I'm sure the parent poster knows all this, and his view is valid, but I'm going to stand up for modern OSes.
Hardly any programs (certainly hardly any of the programs I use) take advantage of features like Altivec (on PPC G4's) or Hyperthreading (on Intel P4's) - having them do so by being appropriately written and having compilers that can do a good job of optimisation would be a big step in the right direction.
I think most applications don't need to use Altivec or Hyperthreading. FTP clients don't need a ton of processing power; Nor do text editors or p2p apps or a program I'm working on that digitially mimics an old-fashioned notecard research system. I'm not trying to excuse needlessly slow software, but remember that most apps are so insignificant that they barely tax modern processors. Compiler optimization sounds good to me. But to castigate programmers for failing to take advantage of features they don't need isn't fair. I want to see the most efficient use of computing power possible, but sometimes the efficient use of the programmer's time is more important than the efficient use of every last cycle.
That being said, I respect the parent post enomorously and agree with much of its content. I only want to refine what it says.
"You've had that desktop for more than a week? Throw that junk away man it's an antique." "Your laptop is a month old... that's great, if could use a nice heavy paperweight."
I agree, and I already wrote a response to a similar post. The short version: Even though I don't use Windows on a day-to-day basis anymore, I still need Access. And I just don't see one.
The parent post is exactly right about Access. Part of the reason I bought an OS X machine is becaues of the availability of VPC, which in turn allows me to install Windows, which in turn allows me to use Access. Any OS without Access is a deal-breaker because of the business in which I work. Without it, I simply can't get the work done. Some of the Access databases I use were created ten years ago.
The best part of Access is how easy it is use. Until Linux has a database program that combines Access' ease and power, I think most small businesses will continue to use Windows/Office, or sometimes OS X/Filemaker.
Re:One DNF in hand is better than two pre-ordered
on
Employee Stock Options?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You're essentially getting paid in risk rather than money.
Exactly. The higher risk implies at a higher reward. During the dotcom boom, though, that risk seemed low.
Keep in mind as well, however, that stock options show up differently in accounting land than regular compensation. That's why so many small and not-so-small companies like stock options: those options don't come directly out of cash flow, and if that cash flow never quite materializes then the investors aren't out as much. And if the cash flow does materialize, then the employee makes a tremendous amount of money. Everyone wins. Or at least that's the theory.
You think Bush's Billionare Buddies are going to let him raise *their* taxes?
That's a ludicrous statement. Any billionaire has all the money he could conceivably want and the ability to use tax loopholes -- the ones that Congress opens, whether on the watch of Democrats or Republicans -- that make the marginal tax rate they pay become laughable.
Besides that point, remember that Social Security is a tax on the first ~$83,000 in income. That means that the superich mentioned above, who make relatively little in income and a tremendous amount from savings and investment, won't be troubled much by additional social security taxes, which are paid out of the wages of current workers.
Much of the rest of your post is right, particularly the part that mentions a Ponzi scheme. The only palatable answer that will allow for economic growth and some saftey net for older people is a raising of the retirement age. Keep in mind that when social security was created, most people didn't live long enough to collect the benefits anyway, so there were dozens if not hundreds (I forget the exact statistic) of workers for every retired person. Ever since, ratio of workers to retired people has worsened, and I think it's going to have to go in the other direction.
Neither do I. The hard fact is that eventually the government will have to either a) raise taxes or b) reduce benefits. The former could come in the form of asset reallocation from other parts of the government, while the latter could come from raising the retirement age. Regardless of what happens and your partisan position, the current system isn't going to work. The sentence I quoted from the parent sums the problem well.
To sell at a fixed price, you have to have a product deemed valuable enough that consumers decide it's one they plan on keeping for a relatively long time, and expect to be able to recoup some money on at the end of their use of it.
I find your whole comment interesting, as well as the phenomenon of rebates and gimmicks to try to convince consumers that they're receiving a deal. Grocery stores sometimes try to do the same thing as a form of price differentiation, so they can sell items at a higher markup to those who value their time sufficiently that they won't clip coupons, while also capturing the business of those who do.
Overall, I find the whole thing irritating, which is one reason why I like Trader Joe's: they say they give the lowest prices they can -- and their prices are good -- and don't have sales. On the computer side of things, Apple is the same way, which I like. Instead of waiting for the ideal rebate, one buys a computer with reasonable confidence that the price will remain constant, barring the introduction of a new movdel. Of course, part of the problem with such a strategy is that, as per your qutoed comment above, consumers need to understand long-range planning (this is a general comment about pricing structures in general, and not an effort to get into a price flamewar regarding Apple). Most consumers, I suspect, don't think in the long-term, or like playing price games.
Secondly, there must be a supplier SOMEWHERE that treats the customer like they're smart and offers a fair deal without the tricks.
Most websites are forced to treat the customer like he/she is smart, becaues the parity of information means that the customer can easily find another merchant online that sells similar products.
Alternatively, there are some shops that charge either the lowest possible prices without rebates or don't change prices. Apple is one of the latter -- regardless of where you buy an Apple computer, the price is the same. No bullshit rebates, no confusion. It's a nice system.
For a little while, it annoyed me that I didn't have a fast way to switch quickly between windows in the same app, but I discovered that one can accomplish this with command-tilde (the ~ or ` character). This combination switches to the next open window in the same app.
Obviously, you didn't say you had this problem, but I had some thoughts similar to yours and was overjoyed when I figured out the above.
What I will not tollerate, and will quit my job and become a full-time political activist in the face of, is robot soldiers that are autonomous enough that a small group of individuals (say 1000 or less) can wield enough power to wrest control of the country away from elected officials.
A small group of such individuals already exist, and have existed since the beginning of the USA: they're called Generals. A coterie of them could take over the country quickly if they organized and moved effectively to occupy positions of power, chiefly in Washington DC, fast enough. A Seven Days in May scenario is still possible, although fairly implausible.
They already have the infrastructure, disipline and ability to take over the country, at least in the short term. So if you're worried about a "small group of individiuals," you might be better off worrying about the small, powerful groups that already exist, rather than fanciful extrapolations about the potential of shotgun-wielding robots.
As I noted above in response to another highly-moderated comment, the book is also known as Tiger Tiger in Britain. Not sure about the rest of the world, though.
I think this guy is just trying to make money, which means that a rational person would develop software for the platform that comprises 90% of the desktop market.*
Another way to make money and sell more product is through advertising. By conflating this whole non-issue of Konfabulator's author stealing Apple's idea who stole Xerox's idea and then crying becaues he said Apple stole his idea, he can get tons of free press for his product. Like, for example, this/. article that announces Konfab for Windows.
*Note that this is coming from a PowerBook owner. I still understand the respective market sizes of OS X and Windows, though.
Any thoughts as to the anti-trust aspects of this?
Yeah: there are none. AOL operates in a highly-competitive industry and can choose to offer whatever services it wants. If you want their services you pay.
In addition to the political considerations highly-moderated posters already state, nuclear power has another problem: it's not going to help the car and plane situation. According to the estimates I've read, cars and planes account for so much oil consumption that converting to nuclear power won't help as much as fewer people driving SUVs and pickups.
Downsides: I spend all day staring at a computer monitor. Sometimes it's nice to have 600+ dpi on nice, plain paper. Sometimes I'm not connected to the internet. Sometimes I want to read a book I bought ten years ago.
Obviously, the pros/cons of e-books have been hashed out before, and to each his own. But I still like the tangible thing.
I'm not sure how the Patriot Act has affected my day-to-day life -- for example, I take out library books, the records of which the government could secretly request. I speak on telephones that I think are not tapped.
The most pernicious and insidious effects of the Patriot Act may be that people aren't sure how this speciously-named legistlation will hurt them until it does.
Welcome to the new/. where we just LOOK like we know what the hell we are talking about.
Judging by the fact that half the comments in this story concern the non-sequitor invocation of Moore's Observation, "we" don't even look like we know what the hell we're talking about.
Maybe malware writers will target *nix, but open source will probably scarcely suffer: viewing the source means one can be absolutely sure of what software is being used on one's box.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly any programs (certainly hardly any of the programs I use) take advantage of features like Altivec (on PPC G4's) or Hyperthreading (on Intel P4's) - having them do so by being appropriately written and having compilers that can do a good job of optimisation would be a big step in the right direction.
I think most applications don't need to use Altivec or Hyperthreading. FTP clients don't need a ton of processing power; Nor do text editors or p2p apps or a program I'm working on that digitially mimics an old-fashioned notecard research system. I'm not trying to excuse needlessly slow software, but remember that most apps are so insignificant that they barely tax modern processors. Compiler optimization sounds good to me. But to castigate programmers for failing to take advantage of features they don't need isn't fair. I want to see the most efficient use of computing power possible, but sometimes the efficient use of the programmer's time is more important than the efficient use of every last cycle.
That being said, I respect the parent post enomorously and agree with much of its content. I only want to refine what it says.
"Your laptop is a month old... that's great, if could use a nice heavy paperweight."
- Weird Al. Never has he spoken truer words.
I agree, and I already wrote a response to a similar post. The short version: Even though I don't use Windows on a day-to-day basis anymore, I still need Access. And I just don't see one.
The best part of Access is how easy it is use. Until Linux has a database program that combines Access' ease and power, I think most small businesses will continue to use Windows/Office, or sometimes OS X/Filemaker.
Exactly. The higher risk implies at a higher reward. During the dotcom boom, though, that risk seemed low.
Keep in mind as well, however, that stock options show up differently in accounting land than regular compensation. That's why so many small and not-so-small companies like stock options: those options don't come directly out of cash flow, and if that cash flow never quite materializes then the investors aren't out as much. And if the cash flow does materialize, then the employee makes a tremendous amount of money. Everyone wins. Or at least that's the theory.
That's a ludicrous statement. Any billionaire has all the money he could conceivably want and the ability to use tax loopholes -- the ones that Congress opens, whether on the watch of Democrats or Republicans -- that make the marginal tax rate they pay become laughable.
Besides that point, remember that Social Security is a tax on the first ~$83,000 in income. That means that the superich mentioned above, who make relatively little in income and a tremendous amount from savings and investment, won't be troubled much by additional social security taxes, which are paid out of the wages of current workers.
Much of the rest of your post is right, particularly the part that mentions a Ponzi scheme. The only palatable answer that will allow for economic growth and some saftey net for older people is a raising of the retirement age. Keep in mind that when social security was created, most people didn't live long enough to collect the benefits anyway, so there were dozens if not hundreds (I forget the exact statistic) of workers for every retired person. Ever since, ratio of workers to retired people has worsened, and I think it's going to have to go in the other direction.
Neither do I. The hard fact is that eventually the government will have to either a) raise taxes or b) reduce benefits. The former could come in the form of asset reallocation from other parts of the government, while the latter could come from raising the retirement age. Regardless of what happens and your partisan position, the current system isn't going to work. The sentence I quoted from the parent sums the problem well.
I find your whole comment interesting, as well as the phenomenon of rebates and gimmicks to try to convince consumers that they're receiving a deal. Grocery stores sometimes try to do the same thing as a form of price differentiation, so they can sell items at a higher markup to those who value their time sufficiently that they won't clip coupons, while also capturing the business of those who do.
Overall, I find the whole thing irritating, which is one reason why I like Trader Joe's: they say they give the lowest prices they can -- and their prices are good -- and don't have sales. On the computer side of things, Apple is the same way, which I like. Instead of waiting for the ideal rebate, one buys a computer with reasonable confidence that the price will remain constant, barring the introduction of a new movdel. Of course, part of the problem with such a strategy is that, as per your qutoed comment above, consumers need to understand long-range planning (this is a general comment about pricing structures in general, and not an effort to get into a price flamewar regarding Apple). Most consumers, I suspect, don't think in the long-term, or like playing price games.
Most websites are forced to treat the customer like he/she is smart, becaues the parity of information means that the customer can easily find another merchant online that sells similar products.
Alternatively, there are some shops that charge either the lowest possible prices without rebates or don't change prices. Apple is one of the latter -- regardless of where you buy an Apple computer, the price is the same. No bullshit rebates, no confusion. It's a nice system.
Alternatives exist to the labels which compose the the RIAA.
Obviously, you didn't say you had this problem, but I had some thoughts similar to yours and was overjoyed when I figured out the above.
finish our post...
A small group of such individuals already exist, and have existed since the beginning of the USA: they're called Generals. A coterie of them could take over the country quickly if they organized and moved effectively to occupy positions of power, chiefly in Washington DC, fast enough. A Seven Days in May scenario is still possible, although fairly implausible.
They already have the infrastructure, disipline and ability to take over the country, at least in the short term. So if you're worried about a "small group of individiuals," you might be better off worrying about the small, powerful groups that already exist, rather than fanciful extrapolations about the potential of shotgun-wielding robots.
As I noted above in response to another highly-moderated comment, the book is also known as Tiger Tiger in Britain. Not sure about the rest of the world, though.
Also note that it's named Tiger Tiger in Britain. Not sure about the rest of the world, though.
Another way to make money and sell more product is through advertising. By conflating this whole non-issue of Konfabulator's author stealing Apple's idea who stole Xerox's idea and then crying becaues he said Apple stole his idea, he can get tons of free press for his product. Like, for example, this /. article that announces Konfab for Windows.
*Note that this is coming from a PowerBook owner. I still understand the respective market sizes of OS X and Windows, though.
Yeah: there are none. AOL operates in a highly-competitive industry and can choose to offer whatever services it wants. If you want their services you pay.
In addition to the political considerations highly-moderated posters already state, nuclear power has another problem: it's not going to help the car and plane situation. According to the estimates I've read, cars and planes account for so much oil consumption that converting to nuclear power won't help as much as fewer people driving SUVs and pickups.
Obviously, the pros/cons of e-books have been hashed out before, and to each his own. But I still like the tangible thing.
I've read the opposite of your statement. Care to back it up with any links or statistics?
The most pernicious and insidious effects of the Patriot Act may be that people aren't sure how this speciously-named legistlation will hurt them until it does.
Judging by the fact that half the comments in this story concern the non-sequitor invocation of Moore's Observation, "we" don't even look like we know what the hell we're talking about.
I almost forgot I was reading /. too, until I saw that your post a) mentions Ogg and b) makes a grammar mistake.
Maybe malware writers will target *nix, but open source will probably scarcely suffer: viewing the source means one can be absolutely sure of what software is being used on one's box.
I use ad removers like this and this. Or maybe adware preventers would be more appropriate.