IBM saw the PC as a low priced computer. They released three different OS's for it during the early days. But the other OS's were expensive, one was a Unix. If somebody was going to spend the extra money to get the Unix OS why not spring for a real Unix workstation from IBM, HP, Digital or one of the other powers at the time. Microsoft was smart making DOS cheap on a cheap architecture, it allowed them to get the most initial customers on the PC thus setting themselves up for a successful future.
There is a lot to the product. Lets face it when Microsoft started off they eliminated a boat load of competition who had considerably better capital. Look at the way Excel over took Lotus 123. Marketing is important but having a good product is important, not nesecarly the best but one with a good ROI which is something that Microsoft still offers.
We'll he claimed they authenicated users faster than AOL(not much of speed claim there) but I wondering too who authenicates 300 million users since no company has 300 million employees or customers. At least not until Wal-Mart takes over all business in the world.
It took me two minutes to find these two exmamples. Now I didn't find an Oracle. But you do realize that 2000 inserts per second is not that many, OLTP database design is made for this.
Well it depends on the school, places like MIT and Carnigie Mellon have cutting edge tech classes. Your not going to get cutting edge in underclassmen CS and IS classes because they need to get all students up to speed on basic concepts first. IF you went to college and thier CS program never got beyond Pascal for a programming lanuage, you went to a bad college.
You live in the world of the nerds, normal people use Windows. Hell when I worked tech support a few years ago most of the users thought the only way to get on the Internet was clicking on the "Big Blue E".
The majority of businesses uses comercial OS's be it Windows, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, or one of the Linux's. Your crazy to think people roll thier own. I bet if you just add up Windows, Solaris, OS/400, and AIX you got over 60% of the servers out there.
The problem is for the IPOD a PDA is probably more well suited for morphing into the next big thing. A Palm OS or possibly a Win CE is more well suited for such a transformation as it has functionality built into it and room to exmpand. Now Apple as this going for them, they know much better than Microsoft or Palm(or Samsung or who ever) how to make a cool gadget that has buzz.
Netcraft stats are meaningless, what percentage of servers are exposed to the Interent, not a very high number I don't know the percent but only web, dns, and mail servers are exposed for the most part. You need to look at sales numbers to find out, I don't have these but I imagine Netcraft numbers are high because Linux and BSD are good for web servers but not really used for alot of internal applications by companies
If the source is open and anyone can get the Java complier for free who cares if Sun controls the way Java goes in the future. I imagine there are millions of developers who use Java so I don't see how this hurts the Open Source Community.
You never will find a Monon programmer for pay. What company is going to say, "gee I like using Linux but I would like to program to Microsoft standards"...ding ding ding... "lets use Mono". I also hate the fact on here everyone says Mono gives you.NET it doesn't even have all the functions. Plus I'd wager atleast 50% of the.NET code out there is written VB.NET and maybe 1.5% is in J#. Java is cross platform and.NET is really aimed at accross the different windows architechtures both of which have there places depending on purpose.
Better off, we all would be stuck with little annoying one button mouses. I can take only one button, but some of those IMacs came with the smallest most unusable mouses around, I swear they were designed for Lebercons or Pixies.
Well I see your point to some extent about porting between platforms not being as bad as architectures. But for the most part the OS has changed some inbetween 32-bit and 64-bit processors. The IA-64 windows is an example, I know there is difficulty with that, I believe the AMD-64 version is better. But like I originally said if you wrote in JAVA or.NET this port problem would be considerably easier.
First of all the parent post wasn't about OSS apps, it was about all apps. Most businesses use internally developed apps, they may depend on things like COM+ objects or other things that lock in on platform. Second of all you oversimplify the cost of moving apps. If it was so easy Oracle for example would release its versions for all OS at the same time instead of a timed port. Yeah it is easy to port some little crappy app but not a large app.
Just because the code is open source doesn't mean you can just open it up on a different architecture and recompile it. If that was the case then every piece of commercial software would be available for every platform because building for everything would be such a cheap process.
When you can program in managed code be it.NET or Java. I know that most.NET code can move about the various 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Windows and as long as the Java VM is designed correctly on the new platforms those should move relitevy easy as well. Now for the other 90% of code out there, your in trouble.
Your siting 3.7% market share as something to be considered a threat.
Not to mention that Macs tend to be used longer
how did you stat this little fact of your, check out the other three nerds in your dorm. I know a person still running windows 95 on p90, that doesn't mean I can just make a statement saying "people tend to use windows 95 still".
You think they could be in a stonger position then they are now. They own the desktop market, have a good position in the server market, own the office suite market, own a decent development and business integration and back end software market(think SQL Server,.NET...). How else could they improve in position in your eyes, no wait lets not worry about your eyes lets worry about reality. Microsoft is doing fantanstic business wise, sure IBM and HP rank higher on the fortune 500 but microsof doesn't do harware or consulting. For a software only company they have dominated there chosen markets for the most part. Going to an OS based on Free-BSD would make it much easier for their competitors to run software on different platforms, it would be stupid, they need product lock-in to maintain their advantage.
It is easy to find mother boards withou on board video. You can disable the sound in the bios. WHo cares about the onboard NIC I'm sure its as good as the NIC card you have
Too many variables to say which one performs better, lets face it most people run IIS for ASP or ASP.NET while APACHE is used for PHP, Perl CGI, and jsp with the right modules. You really need to compare dynamic pages that look identical but are written in the relevant langs. Also performance isn't the end all on most web servers. Sure for google or amazon it is, but for an internal intranet server that is used by 500 employees I would think speed of developer deployment is more important as either server could handle the load.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM saw the PC as a low priced computer. They released three different OS's for it during the early days. But the other OS's were expensive, one was a Unix. If somebody was going to spend the extra money to get the Unix OS why not spring for a real Unix workstation from IBM, HP, Digital or one of the other powers at the time. Microsoft was smart making DOS cheap on a cheap architecture, it allowed them to get the most initial customers on the PC thus setting themselves up for a successful future.
There is a lot to the product. Lets face it when Microsoft started off they eliminated a boat load of competition who had considerably better capital. Look at the way Excel over took Lotus 123. Marketing is important but having a good product is important, not nesecarly the best but one with a good ROI which is something that Microsoft still offers.
We'll he claimed they authenicated users faster than AOL(not much of speed claim there) but I wondering too who authenicates 300 million users since no company has 300 million employees or customers. At least not until Wal-Mart takes over all business in the world.
I'd rather live in a world with Tigerdirect and no Mac than a world with Mac and no TIgerdirect.
According to mysql they're are sites that run with 800 updates\inserts per second http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-overview. html.
t a_operations.asp
Here is sql server performance test that gets over 9000 inserts per second.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/jc_large_da
It took me two minutes to find these two exmamples. Now I didn't find an Oracle. But you do realize that 2000 inserts per second is not that many, OLTP database design is made for this.
You can definitely use Oracle to write out 2000 updates per second if your hardware is up to it and your db skills are good.
Well it depends on the school, places like MIT and Carnigie Mellon have cutting edge tech classes. Your not going to get cutting edge in underclassmen CS and IS classes because they need to get all students up to speed on basic concepts first. IF you went to college and thier CS program never got beyond Pascal for a programming lanuage, you went to a bad college.
You live in the world of the nerds, normal people use Windows. Hell when I worked tech support a few years ago most of the users thought the only way to get on the Internet was clicking on the "Big Blue E".
The majority of businesses uses comercial OS's be it Windows, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, or one of the Linux's. Your crazy to think people roll thier own. I bet if you just add up Windows, Solaris, OS/400, and AIX you got over 60% of the servers out there.
The problem is for the IPOD a PDA is probably more well suited for morphing into the next big thing. A Palm OS or possibly a Win CE is more well suited for such a transformation as it has functionality built into it and room to exmpand. Now Apple as this going for them, they know much better than Microsoft or Palm(or Samsung or who ever) how to make a cool gadget that has buzz.
Netcraft stats are meaningless, what percentage of servers are exposed to the Interent, not a very high number I don't know the percent but only web, dns, and mail servers are exposed for the most part. You need to look at sales numbers to find out, I don't have these but I imagine Netcraft numbers are high because Linux and BSD are good for web servers but not really used for alot of internal applications by companies
If the source is open and anyone can get the Java complier for free who cares if Sun controls the way Java goes in the future. I imagine there are millions of developers who use Java so I don't see how this hurts the Open Source Community.
You never will find a Monon programmer for pay. What company is going to say, "gee I like using Linux but I would like to program to Microsoft standards"...ding ding ding ... "lets use Mono". I also hate the fact on here everyone says Mono gives you .NET it doesn't even have all the functions. Plus I'd wager atleast 50% of the .NET code out there is written VB.NET and maybe 1.5% is in J#. Java is cross platform and .NET is really aimed at accross the different windows architechtures both of which have there places depending on purpose.
Better off, we all would be stuck with little annoying one button mouses. I can take only one button, but some of those IMacs came with the smallest most unusable mouses around, I swear they were designed for Lebercons or Pixies.
I thought hard drives were completely sealed so why does it matter if it under the oil.
Well I see your point to some extent about porting between platforms not being as bad as architectures. But for the most part the OS has changed some inbetween 32-bit and 64-bit processors. The IA-64 windows is an example, I know there is difficulty with that, I believe the AMD-64 version is better. But like I originally said if you wrote in JAVA or .NET this port problem would be considerably easier.
First of all the parent post wasn't about OSS apps, it was about all apps. Most businesses use internally developed apps, they may depend on things like COM+ objects or other things that lock in on platform. Second of all you oversimplify the cost of moving apps. If it was so easy Oracle for example would release its versions for all OS at the same time instead of a timed port. Yeah it is easy to port some little crappy app but not a large app.
Just because the code is open source doesn't mean you can just open it up on a different architecture and recompile it. If that was the case then every piece of commercial software would be available for every platform because building for everything would be such a cheap process.
When you can program in managed code be it .NET or Java. I know that most .NET code can move about the various 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Windows and as long as the Java VM is designed correctly on the new platforms those should move relitevy easy as well. Now for the other 90% of code out there, your in trouble.
Of course Apple's got the hardware lock-in too
More like product lock out, nobody uses Apples. Let me rephrase, very few people and almost no businesses use Mac.
Your siting 3.7% market share as something to be considered a threat.
Not to mention that Macs tend to be used longer
how did you stat this little fact of your, check out the other three nerds in your dorm. I know a person still running windows 95 on p90, that doesn't mean I can just make a statement saying "people tend to use windows 95 still".
You think they could be in a stonger position then they are now. They own the desktop market, have a good position in the server market, own the office suite market, own a decent development and business integration and back end software market(think SQL Server, .NET...). How else could they improve in position in your eyes, no wait lets not worry about your eyes lets worry about reality. Microsoft is doing fantanstic business wise, sure IBM and HP rank higher on the fortune 500 but microsof doesn't do harware or consulting. For a software only company they have dominated there chosen markets for the most part. Going to an OS based on Free-BSD would make it much easier for their competitors to run software on different platforms, it would be stupid, they need product lock-in to maintain their advantage.
"Why use Microsoft if you have a broadband connection and combine Firefox with powerful web services like Google's Gmail?."
The answer is simply Clippy the office assistant.
It is easy to find mother boards withou on board video. You can disable the sound in the bios. WHo cares about the onboard NIC I'm sure its as good as the NIC card you have
Too many variables to say which one performs better, lets face it most people run IIS for ASP or ASP.NET while APACHE is used for PHP, Perl CGI, and jsp with the right modules. You really need to compare dynamic pages that look identical but are written in the relevant langs. Also performance isn't the end all on most web servers. Sure for google or amazon it is, but for an internal intranet server that is used by 500 employees I would think speed of developer deployment is more important as either server could handle the load.