At this point, 64-bit multiprocessing on a budget is an oxymoron.
And that's what makes this whole affair so irritating--it really didn't *have* to turn out this way. I, and I'm sure a lot of other people too, would have bought Alphas if we could have afforded them. But DEC would have had to make the first move (drastic price cuts coupled with very loud marketing and brilliant distribution agreements). Unfortunately, DEC was stupid and Intel was smart (and lucky). DEC just didn't seem to realize what they had.
Intel's 32-bit chips continue to thrive due to marketing, not technology.
Actually, not really. They mainly continue to thrive because Microsoft was able to lock in countless millions of business customers who needed to keep running the applications they started with on an IBM PC. I almost get the impression that IA64, with it's extremely long development history, is meant to be a sort of big "apology" to the world from Intel engineers. Those guys probably cringe every time they see x86 discussed.
The strength of Windows is that just about everything is a COM object, which creates enormous flexibility.
Actually, this is very similar to the way things work(ed) in NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP--and now, Mac OS X. Although, the whold boatload of Mac cruft in Classic and Carbon has greatly blunted the impressiveness of the original design. Backwards compatibility bites us harshly in the butt once again....
If you are talking about object integration with the operating system, Windows blows Linux (and Unix) out of the water.
When you say object, are you speaking of objects as in OOP? Because that wouldn't make any sense. It would be the language and frameworks that define the cohesiveness of objects. And that precious little to do with the underlying OS. For example, OpenStep (aka Cocoa, which is a stupid name) is a kickass framework no matter what OS it runs on (Linux, Solaris, OPENSTEP/Mach, Mac OS X, Windows NT...).
If that's not what you're talking about, then I'm not sure what to say.;-)
Those corporate buyers will not take risks by trying oddball solutions, but once an alternative to MS-Office is recognised as a valid business-choice, they will kick Microsoft hard.
Possibly. But doesn't it seem like there's more to it than that? There are some pretty reasonable office suites available now for alternative OSes (and even for Windows) and yet everybody views this as anathema.
I don't know how things are going where you are; but where I've been for the past four years (a university campus) the users and IT alike have a kind of holy reverence for Microsoft. They wouldn't tolerate Linux for 5 seconds. The users clutch on to their Windows machines like children reaching for a blanky. The IT guys are all MSCE weenies who think UNIX is an archaic toy. Most servers are NT.
Most of the labs (except for a physics modeling lab which has a few OLD SGIs and Suns) are 98 or NT (the CS labs). The chances of one of the general lab machines functioning properly are ~30%. Only the students seem to notice.
But hey, it's gotten better! My Freshman year, we had a bunch of old Macs and 486s as a CS lab.
its already occured...it's called turning off java
You mean someone has actually been sued for turning off JavaScript? Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't exactly surprise me, the way things are going. It's just that I haven't heard about this.
the point is that you're not making a copy for your friends/family. you're loaning your personal use copy for them to view.
I didn't think that's what we were talking about. I thought we were talking about distribution of *copies*. That seemed to be the way the thread was heading. I guess it all depends on how you define the term "sharing".
Then, what do you think the effect should be? I bet sane marketing people aren't expecting everyone who watches the commercial to go and run to the mall and buy the product.
Resolution: definitely; bit depth: not sure. To change resolution (in XFree86--not sure about other X servers) i think the default key bindings are Ctrl+Alt+Keypad+ and Ctrl+Alt+Keypad-
This may not quite correct as i don't generally use that feature. At any rate it's configurable.
There's a difference, however: nobody liked IBM. Everyone thought they were arrogant and useless (and they were right). Most people (not Slashdotters, but we're not most people) like Microsoft. Most people are convinced that Bill Gates INVENTED computers, operating systems, word processors, and the Internet ("What an idiot Al Gore is! Everybody knows that *Bill Gates* invented the Internet!"). People seriously believe that all good things in this world proceed directly from Bill Gates and his incredible genius. I know, I know--but that's honestly what they think.
What you say is true, but how Windows comes into this is Microsoft's constant and loud insistance that Windows 2000 is a FAR superior server platform to ANY Unix environment.
Interesting that you're in a similar position to me WRT the resume thing. I've got good experience using and administering OSes as diverse as Windows v2.0 and OPENSTEP 4.2/Mach. I've sent out tons of resumes and had exactly *one* response (from "Comet Cursor";-). And I couldn't take the job because they were desperate and I wasn't available immediately. I even tried applying to a Borders Books & Music and they never contacted me back. C'est la vie.
It's also pretty cool that you're from SC. I just moved to New Jersey from Greenville a couple of months ago to attend Grad School. I went to Furman.
I don't have any evidence, no. It's just a gut feeling that they aren't that effective. You may be right about people seeing them. I even watch them every now and then--if they're funny or interesting. But I define effective as: people buy the product as a result of seeing the ad; and I believe that most companies would feel this way about it, too.
I think that quite a large number of people are cynical (and wisely so) about advertisements. Playing 'spot the fallacy' in TV ads was always a favorite game in our family when I was growing up. Think about it for a minute: the format of commercial breaks is so common and consistent that it's almost like somebody yelling out, "Steaming pile of BS coming right up!" It's like the old joke: how do you know when a Buroughs salesman is lying? His mouth moves!
On the other hand, if people don't *know* something is being sold, they're probably more likely to absorb it. This is why I feel that product placements (using products in the actual content of movies and programming) is so much better. People don't realize they're being lied to. It's like the difference between the classic "Psst. Hey buddy want to buy a watch?" and the "Welcome to Smith's Jewlers! We have some very fine watches on sale today!"
Do you think companies haven't done research on the effectivines of TV advertising?
Actually, I think that it's pretty difficult to do valid research on that kind of thing. I mean, every now and then, you fill out a registration card with one of those, "How did you hear about our product" sections. But even that isn't necessarily accurate. You can hear about something on TV but buy it for a completely different reason. Plus, many people don't fill them out at all or fill them out incorrectly as an act of rebellion. Granted, just getting your name out there is part of advertising; but it's all useless if people don't buy. Look at some of the movies that are hyped beyond belief but completely flop.
Another way of looking at this is with what happened with banner ads. Why were they deemed a failure? I've heard two reasons: 1) people followed a lot of deceptive and pointless banner ads and then started becoming wary; and 2) people on the web are usually looking for something else and aren't interested in what you're selling. Both of these apply to TV: 1) people get burned a few times by businesses and become wary of promises made by companies in the future (some people never develop this--we call them "suckers"); 2) people are "looking" for something on the TV: entertainment. They're not interested in buying something, they're interested in being entertained.
Well, it's all rather speculative either way; and I don't have proof but I'll just say that I think advertisers take themselves too seriously.
Has anyone tried the Multiplayer test of the new Wolfenstein? That's pretty scary in a way (similar to the way that Saving Private Ryan is scary). It's just got a kind of persistent realism and soberness to it that makes it quite chilling. But maybe it's just me.
I always thought they were saying Freon. But gun-toting air conditioning repairmen just doesn't seem too scary...
Re:Slow night, but DON'T SURRENDER
on
All Hallow's Eve
·
· Score: 1
Heh, for a second there, I thought you were about to say something about not surrendering to all the annoying little kids who will TP your house if you don't give them candy (and sometimes even if you do).;-)
Seriously, you're absolutely right. We've got to remember where the "terror" in "terrorism" comes from: their desire is not to devestate so much as to frighten and bewilder. The more we worry and bite our nails over this stuff, the more successful they will deem this to be.
It's a hairy, chubby grown man wearing a leather mask and chains.
Didn't you see "Pulp Fiction?"
Ugh...don't remind me of that. I saw that in High School with some friends. One of the guys had seen it already and told us we didn't really want to see what was about to happen and that we probably should shut our eyes. We, being the brave idiots that we were, decided to watch anyway. Boy was that dumb.
I don't think this will happen for several reasons: 1) advertising on the web has been shown to be ineffective and useless; 2) it isn't deeply entrenched (ie. hasn't had a huge permanent industry grow up around it) and doesn't contribute significantly to the economy (especially after dot-bomb).
Slashdot Mirror
Not often--always. Can anyone give me ONE example of the superior technology winning? Anyone...Anyone?
And that's what makes this whole affair so irritating--it really didn't *have* to turn out this way. I, and I'm sure a lot of other people too, would have bought Alphas if we could have afforded them. But DEC would have had to make the first move (drastic price cuts coupled with very loud marketing and brilliant distribution agreements). Unfortunately, DEC was stupid and Intel was smart (and lucky). DEC just didn't seem to realize what they had.
I hear ya bro. If that weren't true, we'd all be running NeXTSTEP on 10 GHz Alphas right now....
Not always. Software should only do them if you don't want speed. For example, no old 8086 (even if produced at high clock speeds) will run software that can be reasonably compared to a box full of Motorola DSPs. Sure, you could make a box full of general purpose processors but: 1) power consumption and heat generated would be outrageous; 2) price would be REALLY outrageous. What has been determined is that multimedia is important enough that dedicating hardware to it is a good idea. Of course, I'm not defending MMX or 3DNow. ;-) If you're going to dedicate hardware to something, do it right.
Actually, not really. They mainly continue to thrive because Microsoft was able to lock in countless millions of business customers who needed to keep running the applications they started with on an IBM PC. I almost get the impression that IA64, with it's extremely long development history, is meant to be a sort of big "apology" to the world from Intel engineers. Those guys probably cringe every time they see x86 discussed.
Actually, this is very similar to the way things work(ed) in NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP--and now, Mac OS X. Although, the whold boatload of Mac cruft in Classic and Carbon has greatly blunted the impressiveness of the original design. Backwards compatibility bites us harshly in the butt once again....
Come again?
When you say object, are you speaking of objects as in OOP? Because that wouldn't make any sense. It would be the language and frameworks that define the cohesiveness of objects. And that precious little to do with the underlying OS. For example, OpenStep (aka Cocoa, which is a stupid name) is a kickass framework no matter what OS it runs on (Linux, Solaris, OPENSTEP/Mach, Mac OS X, Windows NT...).
If that's not what you're talking about, then I'm not sure what to say. ;-)
Possibly. But doesn't it seem like there's more to it than that? There are some pretty reasonable office suites available now for alternative OSes (and even for Windows) and yet everybody views this as anathema.
I don't know how things are going where you are; but where I've been for the past four years (a university campus) the users and IT alike have a kind of holy reverence for Microsoft. They wouldn't tolerate Linux for 5 seconds. The users clutch on to their Windows machines like children reaching for a blanky. The IT guys are all MSCE weenies who think UNIX is an archaic toy. Most servers are NT.
Most of the labs (except for a physics modeling lab which has a few OLD SGIs and Suns) are 98 or NT (the CS labs). The chances of one of the general lab machines functioning properly are ~30%. Only the students seem to notice.
But hey, it's gotten better! My Freshman year, we had a bunch of old Macs and 486s as a CS lab.
You mean someone has actually been sued for turning off JavaScript? Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't exactly surprise me, the way things are going. It's just that I haven't heard about this.
I didn't think that's what we were talking about. I thought we were talking about distribution of *copies*. That seemed to be the way the thread was heading. I guess it all depends on how you define the term "sharing".
Nope. But their clients are.
This may not quite correct as i don't generally use that feature. At any rate it's configurable.
There's a difference, however: nobody liked IBM. Everyone thought they were arrogant and useless (and they were right). Most people (not Slashdotters, but we're not most people) like Microsoft. Most people are convinced that Bill Gates INVENTED computers, operating systems, word processors, and the Internet ("What an idiot Al Gore is! Everybody knows that *Bill Gates* invented the Internet!"). People seriously believe that all good things in this world proceed directly from Bill Gates and his incredible genius. I know, I know--but that's honestly what they think.
What you say is true, but how Windows comes into this is Microsoft's constant and loud insistance that Windows 2000 is a FAR superior server platform to ANY Unix environment.
Was there an A/C guy in that movie? I never saw it, myself. You learn something every day I suppose. Even on Slashdot!
It's also pretty cool that you're from SC. I just moved to New Jersey from Greenville a couple of months ago to attend Grad School. I went to Furman.
I think that quite a large number of people are cynical (and wisely so) about advertisements. Playing 'spot the fallacy' in TV ads was always a favorite game in our family when I was growing up. Think about it for a minute: the format of commercial breaks is so common and consistent that it's almost like somebody yelling out, "Steaming pile of BS coming right up!" It's like the old joke: how do you know when a Buroughs salesman is lying? His mouth moves!
On the other hand, if people don't *know* something is being sold, they're probably more likely to absorb it. This is why I feel that product placements (using products in the actual content of movies and programming) is so much better. People don't realize they're being lied to. It's like the difference between the classic "Psst. Hey buddy want to buy a watch?" and the "Welcome to Smith's Jewlers! We have some very fine watches on sale today!"
Do you think companies haven't done research on the effectivines of TV advertising?
Actually, I think that it's pretty difficult to do valid research on that kind of thing. I mean, every now and then, you fill out a registration card with one of those, "How did you hear about our product" sections. But even that isn't necessarily accurate. You can hear about something on TV but buy it for a completely different reason. Plus, many people don't fill them out at all or fill them out incorrectly as an act of rebellion. Granted, just getting your name out there is part of advertising; but it's all useless if people don't buy. Look at some of the movies that are hyped beyond belief but completely flop.
Another way of looking at this is with what happened with banner ads. Why were they deemed a failure? I've heard two reasons: 1) people followed a lot of deceptive and pointless banner ads and then started becoming wary; and 2) people on the web are usually looking for something else and aren't interested in what you're selling. Both of these apply to TV: 1) people get burned a few times by businesses and become wary of promises made by companies in the future (some people never develop this--we call them "suckers"); 2) people are "looking" for something on the TV: entertainment. They're not interested in buying something, they're interested in being entertained.
Well, it's all rather speculative either way; and I don't have proof but I'll just say that I think advertisers take themselves too seriously.
Somehow, the thought of a female sitting on my chest doesn't give me chills. It pretty much does paralyze me though. ;-)
Yes, I know I'm pathetic.
Has anyone tried the Multiplayer test of the new Wolfenstein? That's pretty scary in a way (similar to the way that Saving Private Ryan is scary). It's just got a kind of persistent realism and soberness to it that makes it quite chilling. But maybe it's just me.
I always thought they were saying Freon. But gun-toting air conditioning repairmen just doesn't seem too scary...
Seriously, you're absolutely right. We've got to remember where the "terror" in "terrorism" comes from: their desire is not to devestate so much as to frighten and bewilder. The more we worry and bite our nails over this stuff, the more successful they will deem this to be.
Didn't you see "Pulp Fiction?"
Ugh...don't remind me of that. I saw that in High School with some friends. One of the guys had seen it already and told us we didn't really want to see what was about to happen and that we probably should shut our eyes. We, being the brave idiots that we were, decided to watch anyway. Boy was that dumb.
I don't think this will happen for several reasons: 1) advertising on the web has been shown to be ineffective and useless; 2) it isn't deeply entrenched (ie. hasn't had a huge permanent industry grow up around it) and doesn't contribute significantly to the economy (especially after dot-bomb).
Might wanna try rephrasing that.