Right. Like my nice Linuxy Sharp Zaurus SL-5500. It has lots of half-baked, half-assed functionality that isn't mature or complete. But it's like a lot of the Linux world. Beta quality being pushed as production ready. I'll grant that the potential is there, but I'd rather not shell out hundreds of clams to be a beta tester.
And this parent was modded Offtopic? WTF? The fact that basic spelling and grammar apparently isn't edited before posting things for the world to see? I work in the technical field as well, and I know that a lot of programmer types are a bit illiterate for sure. But at least some spell checking. Jeeeezus.
Of course the fact that I state a critical opinion I'm sure will leave me modded down as well. *Sigh*
As folks have mentioned, not all M$ patches have to be deployed with mandatory reboots. As a matter of fact you can execute them with command line switches that force them to silently install with no reboots whatsoever. I do this for all of my client workstations for each and every critical patch. As to *how* they will take effect, starting and stopping services is usually good enough. But it's not 100% smooth if there are multiple, dependent services involved. Then the OS might even lock up.
Of course taking the side of rebooting no matter what, due to poor Windoze OS memory management rebooting workstations and servers is usually a good idea anyway. Starting with Windoze 2000 they started improving memory management but I know from Windoze 95 through 98 and ME and Windoze NT 4.0 are all notoriously poor memory managers. So the reboots will probably do some short term good in terms of system utilization...
Re:Still haven't fixed the old file system
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
See my post regarding a similar issue to this. My issues were with Windoze 2000 boxes but Windoze XP might be in the same boat. Dog slow file browsing for sure.
LMFAO! This is the best post so far on this topic. Two enthusiastic thumbs up!
Re:Performance and Volume
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
I know personally that I had to modify settings for Windows 2000 workstations to browse SMB/NTFS network filesystem resources better. Can't wait for patches and service packs for a new multitude of performance and security problems that WinFS will create. Details on my issues with Win2K are below:
Slow NTFS Browsing For Windows 2000 Clients (Q265396)
SYMPTOMS
When you select a file on a network share that uses an NTFS file system partition, extra Server Message Block (SMB) packets are sent on the wire. This behavior causes overall slow network performance.
The same issue occurs if you browse the network, and you position the mouse cursor over one of the files; however, this issue does not occur if you use a Microsoft Windows NT 4.0-based client computer.
CAUSE
This issue occurs because Microsoft Windows Explorer tries to open NTFS streams on the volume to get extended information about the file, for example, title, subject, comments, and source author. All of this information for the file is stored on the volume.
No doubt. I remember back in the day when file allocation tables or boot records got hosed and hard drive contents were lost. You could "fdisk/mbr" or scandisk or else grab your ankles.
Seriously though, I don't see MSSQL having data integrity issues as much as security vulnerabilities. A new worm can hose up your file system as well then.
They should have gone with a journalling filesystem like many of us wanted.
Eh? Who wanted? Not me. For what it is I don't have many problems with the NT/2000 file system structure in general. I know VFAT, FAT16, FAT32, all had their integrity issues and other problems but NTFS has seemed to be adequate for years now. If it's not broken (if someone can point out why it's broken please do so) why fix it?
Whatever, dude. If you think each version of Microsoft's OS doesn't have exponentially higher hardware requirements you are mistaken. My company has about half of its workstations with PIII 550/600 MHz CPU's and 64 MB RAM. Upgrading a couple of these from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 has left them noticeably slower. Of course this isn't news in any event. And these PC's are over three years old after all. But Linux in comparison obviously can run better on older hardware. We all know this.
The *point* of my post was how typical Microsoft's software development is. It is mostly engineering with the arrogant assumption that its intended audience all have PC's a year old or newer. It's ridiculous. Look at all of the.NET Framework crap. I was forced to install version 1.0 on my workstation just to update some Great P(l)ains tax tables. All the updates did was just execute a handful of lines of SQL scripts. But I had to download over 130 MB of.NET crap to get them.
Micro$oft should be on a VH-1 "Behind the Music" segment. How they were hungry and struggling to make it, then turning out some of their best stuff. Then once they made it, how complacent and arrogant they became. Assuming that the public adored them no matter what they did. Finally, how they tried to win back their fans by getting hungry again. Returning to their roots. In a similar fashion they should strip away all of their layers of complication and revert back to Windows 3.1 and Foxpro (j/k).
Good point. Things have changed since the days of 640KB ceilings. Back then programmers had to be inventive and ingenious to fit programming tasks under strict hardware limitations. Look at the old video games programmed into 4 KB of space.
Nowadays Microsoft's answer to things is just throw more hardware at a problem. Rather than have lean, mean programming just double the RAM, double the hard drive capacity, double the processing speed, double the bus speed, ad nauseum. Look at some of their recent OS'es. God knows if you could run them on a computer that's more than a year old judging from the minimum requirements list.
The XML observation is true. Parsing through tons of informatation like file system would have isn't the most efficient implemenation for XML. But I'm sure throwing more hardware at the problem will be their answer. Fat, bloated methods doesn't seem to matter to them since hardware prices have dropped so over the last several years.
Weee waaaah. Dry your tears. One of the large technology players hitting economic downtimes when the majority of the industry is picking back up isn't news? We're not a little biased now are we? Sure it's news, and that's why it's being discussed here.
Unless you are a PHB (or related to one) at Sun what's the injury being done? A company's financial position is being discussed because they might have a sell-off or be part of an merger/acquisition. This in turn might affect technology folks at other places who use Sun products, genius.
Sun seems to be destined to be delegated to the land of Apple. A company trying to gain a foothold in hardware, OS software and app software. Unless you already have the leverage (only currently attained by the ranks of monopolistic Micro$loth) there's no way.
I wouldn't condemn all that they have put forth, as some of the posts are doing. Java is effective for what it does, and when it first came out it seemed to be promising. But I personally don't think it's matured much in it's current state. On the negative side, I can always pick out which apps are Java just due to how goddamn slow they are to load up and initiate. Write once, run anywhere isn't true either. It's not a tower of Babel for sure in terms of seamless code portability. But in its day it was promising.
I have used Solaris in prior jobs and think for what it was doing it was a solid *NIX OS. There were bugs, of course, but back in the day that was true of most any OS. I would rate Solaris as above average as an OS during its heyday.
What pisses me off the most about Sun was (and still is) their hardware arrogance. I thought Apple's and IBM's stuff were priced out of control in apples to apples comparisons. But then I had to administer Sun boxes! My call centers had Sun Sparcs and UltraSparcs running IVR apps and other middleware. I was amazed at the price of these beasts. Four to five times that of Intel x86 boxes. Crazy. Where is the returned value? We still had hardware component failure rates right up there with the cheap Intel x86 boxes. Sun's hardware was intended for big corporate sprawls where price isn't a major factor in decision making. Back in the Dot Com boom of the last 90's this was at its peak.
That's the area where Sun has hit the skids. Since the US economic downturn, focus has so tightly locked in on spending that IT budgets aren't as wide open. And although the US economy is picking up again, companies are still used to operating leaner and meaner as business as usual. And that has hurt Sun. Who can justify spending $40-50K on a basic server?
I found this to be the case as well. That has to be a huge pet peeve with me. Any technical book that has source code listed should be proofed. There is a C++ book out there that I just got done reading and there was source code listed that wouldn't even compile due to forgetting include statements or leaving out a bracket or semicolon. You would think the authors or a proofing team would at least try to compile the code that was in the edition!
I agree with another post. PHP, Python, and other ways to go are head and shoulders above Perl. I last used Perl seriously back in the last 90's.
Microsoft just followed their pattern of success. Some examples are:
Take PC-DOS and build a little on it. Release it as MS-DOS. Great!
Take WordPerfect and build a little on it. Release it as Word. Tada!
Take Lotus 1-2-3 and build a little on it. Release it as Excel. Wow!
Take Spry Mosaic and build a little on it. Release it as Internet Explorer. Sweet!
The only true quantum leap Microsoft has ever made in the company's history is releasing the Windows OS. It was a big jump from the Xerox package, X Windows, etc. in terms of intuitiveness, look, and feel. Some of those folks using the original Mac OS might argue differently, but at least this was a marked departure.
the "dude, you're getting a Dell" guy. He has certainly helped bridge the generation gap between the PC populus. Too bad he can't accept the award because he's in the clink after trying to score another sack...
I thought I was a grammar Nazi. Jeez. We're talking about a free public forum posting environment, not a senior thesis composition at Cornell.
If a reader is able to get the gist of what's being conveyed, that IMHO is the important part. Every now and again I poke a little fun at some of the more illiterate posts, but if you're serious about yours I think it's time you got down off of your high horse.
Maybe Darl was riding a Segway and accidentally slammed head-on into a VW "The Thing," thereby bringing together two silly transportational fads in a most tragic way.
Ahhh....I see. That makes sense. You are referring to a more home user oriented OS. Any of the Windoze Server family surely can serve up multiple remote sessions. All of their scaled down products (e.g. - Personal Web Server, MSDE) have restrictions naturally since they want users shelling out more cash for more sessions. Now I see what was being brought up.
I wonder how much longer all of those Rascals and Lark old-people scooters will be around before getting recalled. As shown on "Jackass," if an old person is going down the courthouse steps or down a hilly sidewalk on one and the batteries are low they are begging for a hip replacement.
How's about an abridged version of the review? Perhaps my circa 2003 American attention span is much too attuned to Coors Light commericals and MTV videos, but I'm more used to an Ebert thumbs up with a qualifying statement or two.
I'd hate to read the review of Marcel Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past."
There's a reason why Terminal Services will only work for 1 desktop at a time.
Huh? I run Win2K Terminal Services and we have 5 desktops at a time connecting. It's all in the licensing scheme implemented by the Terminal Services Manager deal. I personally see a whole lot more potential in X windows sessions than Micro$loth has delivered thus far in Terminal Services/RDC. But I'm a bit confused about the reference to one desktop at a time.
Exactly. Combining NT security from 5+ years ago with a misbehaving client and things weren't as they should've been. Some other guy on this thread posted that it just *cannot* happen, but I can tell you it did back then. Our CHQ NT "gurus" were going out of their skulls trying to figure out what was happening.
Keeping in mind that back then you could just connect through to the RPC$ share anonymously or attach to the debugger process and immediately get admin rights using a sechole.exe program freely available on the Internet. You could also perform an Internet search for "Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Option Pack provides enhanced Web, application, and communication" and immediately come up with hundreds of newly-installed (read not locked down) IIS boxes. I just found one right now.
You hit the nail on the head. Combine a misbehaving client with a poor security model and the results could be interesting.
I can tell you for a fact that the Samba box appeared in Server Manager as a member server. And the admin password for our 5,000 person nationwide company wasn't blank. I had attempted to add NT Workstations to the domain so they appeared under Server Manager in the past and sure enough the NTLM authetnication popped up and since I couldn't exercise admin rights I couldn't add them to the domain.
But the Samba box dropped right in *without* admin authentication. I am not talking about just appearing in a SMB browse list or having its name resolved via WINS/NetBIOS. I am not talking about just appearing under 'Network Neighborhood.' Don't think that I just fell off a turnip truck. Thinking back I believe it was Samba 2.0.3 or so(?) and under an NT 4.0 domain security model.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Like my nice Linuxy Sharp Zaurus SL-5500. It has lots of half-baked, half-assed functionality that isn't mature or complete. But it's like a lot of the Linux world. Beta quality being pushed as production ready. I'll grant that the potential is there, but I'd rather not shell out hundreds of clams to be a beta tester.
Of course the fact that I state a critical opinion I'm sure will leave me modded down as well. *Sigh*
Of course taking the side of rebooting no matter what, due to poor Windoze OS memory management rebooting workstations and servers is usually a good idea anyway. Starting with Windoze 2000 they started improving memory management but I know from Windoze 95 through 98 and ME and Windoze NT 4.0 are all notoriously poor memory managers. So the reboots will probably do some short term good in terms of system utilization...
See my post regarding a similar issue to this. My issues were with Windoze 2000 boxes but Windoze XP might be in the same boat. Dog slow file browsing for sure.
LMFAO! This is the best post so far on this topic. Two enthusiastic thumbs up!
Slow NTFS Browsing For Windows 2000 Clients (Q265396)
SYMPTOMS
When you select a file on a network share that uses an NTFS file system partition, extra Server Message Block (SMB) packets are sent on the wire. This behavior causes overall slow network performance.
The same issue occurs if you browse the network, and you position the mouse cursor over one of the files; however, this issue does not occur if you use a Microsoft Windows NT 4.0-based client computer.
CAUSE
This issue occurs because Microsoft Windows Explorer tries to open NTFS streams on the volume to get extended information about the file, for example, title, subject, comments, and source author. All of this information for the file is stored on the volume.
It's called MSDE (Emmmm Essss Deeee Eeeee) and it's already free. Kthanx.
Seriously though, I don't see MSSQL having data integrity issues as much as security vulnerabilities. A new worm can hose up your file system as well then.
Eh? Who wanted? Not me. For what it is I don't have many problems with the NT/2000 file system structure in general. I know VFAT, FAT16, FAT32, all had their integrity issues and other problems but NTFS has seemed to be adequate for years now. If it's not broken (if someone can point out why it's broken please do so) why fix it?
The *point* of my post was how typical Microsoft's software development is. It is mostly engineering with the arrogant assumption that its intended audience all have PC's a year old or newer. It's ridiculous. Look at all of the .NET Framework crap. I was forced to install version 1.0 on my workstation just to update some Great P(l)ains tax tables. All the updates did was just execute a handful of lines of SQL scripts. But I had to download over 130 MB of .NET crap to get them.
Micro$oft should be on a VH-1 "Behind the Music" segment. How they were hungry and struggling to make it, then turning out some of their best stuff. Then once they made it, how complacent and arrogant they became. Assuming that the public adored them no matter what they did. Finally, how they tried to win back their fans by getting hungry again. Returning to their roots. In a similar fashion they should strip away all of their layers of complication and revert back to Windows 3.1 and Foxpro (j/k).
Nowadays Microsoft's answer to things is just throw more hardware at a problem. Rather than have lean, mean programming just double the RAM, double the hard drive capacity, double the processing speed, double the bus speed, ad nauseum. Look at some of their recent OS'es. God knows if you could run them on a computer that's more than a year old judging from the minimum requirements list.
The XML observation is true. Parsing through tons of informatation like file system would have isn't the most efficient implemenation for XML. But I'm sure throwing more hardware at the problem will be their answer. Fat, bloated methods doesn't seem to matter to them since hardware prices have dropped so over the last several years.
Unless you are a PHB (or related to one) at Sun what's the injury being done? A company's financial position is being discussed because they might have a sell-off or be part of an merger/acquisition. This in turn might affect technology folks at other places who use Sun products, genius.
I wouldn't condemn all that they have put forth, as some of the posts are doing. Java is effective for what it does, and when it first came out it seemed to be promising. But I personally don't think it's matured much in it's current state. On the negative side, I can always pick out which apps are Java just due to how goddamn slow they are to load up and initiate. Write once, run anywhere isn't true either. It's not a tower of Babel for sure in terms of seamless code portability. But in its day it was promising.
I have used Solaris in prior jobs and think for what it was doing it was a solid *NIX OS. There were bugs, of course, but back in the day that was true of most any OS. I would rate Solaris as above average as an OS during its heyday.
What pisses me off the most about Sun was (and still is) their hardware arrogance. I thought Apple's and IBM's stuff were priced out of control in apples to apples comparisons. But then I had to administer Sun boxes! My call centers had Sun Sparcs and UltraSparcs running IVR apps and other middleware. I was amazed at the price of these beasts. Four to five times that of Intel x86 boxes. Crazy. Where is the returned value? We still had hardware component failure rates right up there with the cheap Intel x86 boxes. Sun's hardware was intended for big corporate sprawls where price isn't a major factor in decision making. Back in the Dot Com boom of the last 90's this was at its peak.
That's the area where Sun has hit the skids. Since the US economic downturn, focus has so tightly locked in on spending that IT budgets aren't as wide open. And although the US economy is picking up again, companies are still used to operating leaner and meaner as business as usual. And that has hurt Sun. Who can justify spending $40-50K on a basic server?
Microsoft SMS
Microsoft SUS
Microsoft Automatic Windows Update
Simple logon scripts
More sophisticated KixTart logon scripts
If I was your boss or even a peon enduser and saw you manually hopping around from PC to PC I would grease up my boot and start warming up my knee!
I agree with another post. PHP, Python, and other ways to go are head and shoulders above Perl. I last used Perl seriously back in the last 90's.
Take PC-DOS and build a little on it. Release it as MS-DOS. Great!
Take WordPerfect and build a little on it. Release it as Word. Tada!
Take Lotus 1-2-3 and build a little on it. Release it as Excel. Wow!
Take Spry Mosaic and build a little on it. Release it as Internet Explorer. Sweet!
The only true quantum leap Microsoft has ever made in the company's history is releasing the Windows OS. It was a big jump from the Xerox package, X Windows, etc. in terms of intuitiveness, look, and feel. Some of those folks using the original Mac OS might argue differently, but at least this was a marked departure.
the "dude, you're getting a Dell" guy. He has certainly helped bridge the generation gap between the PC populus. Too bad he can't accept the award because he's in the clink after trying to score another sack...
If a reader is able to get the gist of what's being conveyed, that IMHO is the important part. Every now and again I poke a little fun at some of the more illiterate posts, but if you're serious about yours I think it's time you got down off of your high horse.
Maybe Darl was riding a Segway and accidentally slammed head-on into a VW "The Thing," thereby bringing together two silly transportational fads in a most tragic way.
Ahhh....I see. That makes sense. You are referring to a more home user oriented OS. Any of the Windoze Server family surely can serve up multiple remote sessions. All of their scaled down products (e.g. - Personal Web Server, MSDE) have restrictions naturally since they want users shelling out more cash for more sessions. Now I see what was being brought up.
I wonder how much longer all of those Rascals and Lark old-people scooters will be around before getting recalled. As shown on "Jackass," if an old person is going down the courthouse steps or down a hilly sidewalk on one and the batteries are low they are begging for a hip replacement.
I'd hate to read the review of Marcel Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past."
Keeping in mind that back then you could just connect through to the RPC$ share anonymously or attach to the debugger process and immediately get admin rights using a sechole.exe program freely available on the Internet. You could also perform an Internet search for "Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Option Pack provides enhanced Web, application, and communication" and immediately come up with hundreds of newly-installed (read not locked down) IIS boxes. I just found one right now.
You hit the nail on the head. Combine a misbehaving client with a poor security model and the results could be interesting.
But the Samba box dropped right in *without* admin authentication. I am not talking about just appearing in a SMB browse list or having its name resolved via WINS/NetBIOS. I am not talking about just appearing under 'Network Neighborhood.' Don't think that I just fell off a turnip truck. Thinking back I believe it was Samba 2.0.3 or so(?) and under an NT 4.0 domain security model.