The main problem is that Windows is mostly used to run legacy software. Just look at your typical Windows system and look at the fonts used in the applications. It's not rare to find the "System" font in them. That font has been phased out with Windows NT4 and Windows 95, yet many applications still haven't been updated. Now just look at the tab-order in those applications. Mostly the cursor is just jumping around wildly.
In real life Windows nobody cares about user interfaces and even if programmers cared, it's to late as most software has already been written for that plattform. Even if all programmers would decide on a new idea, it would still take several years for it to arrive at the average user.
The main problem with such setups under Windows is that most applications haven't been adapted to the "overlapping windows" feature of Windows yet. Therefore they start up in Fullscreen. Believe me, trying to read a PDF on such a large and split up screen is not much fun.
Oh and then those 30 inch displays are also to expensive to actually do that.
Yes precisely, there is very little mature code. That's why you still have buffer overruns and other security critical bugs.
New features don't have to mean that old code will be changed or made more insecure. There are many attempts at making computer systems modular so adding one piece of code will add a lot of new features to unchanged programmes. The oldest concept incorporating it is the UNIX concept where you have lots of small single-purpose programs which you can connect via pipes to serve any more complex purpose. Each of those programs can easily be made mature. So you reduce the problem to a bit of managable code to string those programs together.
Other concepts are found on object oriented operating systems (even in MacOSX) where Applications typically are just connections between stock objects. If those stock objects are made out of mature code, you get stable software.
I'm sorry, but what has MacOSX to do with mature code? Code is mature when it has lasted for _decades_ and no significant bug has been found. MacOSX is just your average kernel. OK, there are _much_ worse around, but that doesn't make OSX any better.
What _really_ is a shame that it took them 4 years to fix it.
It's not a PDA, it doesn't 'sync up' to anything. It's a full fledged portable workstation. It's not meant to manage your appointments there are _far_ cheaper solutions for that. It's meant to give you a way to do more complex calculations where ever you are, or if it's to complex, log into a more powerfull machine. You can also log into it from your desktop computer. This new version should easily be able to sustain hundreds of user logins.
I thought commercial software companies all died in the 2000 bubble. Except for specialist areas where nobody wants to copy it anyhow.
BTW http://www.archive.org/details/StorageD1984 : At about 4 minutes in, an Interview with Alan Shugart, Founder of Seagate. Some of his statements in there: We will not see the Floppy Disk beeing replaced by semiconductor memory.
This is the part where it really relates to "Don't Copy That Floppy"-Video: Question: "You see this size (3,5") replacing the 5 1/4 inch disks?" Answer: "No I don't. I think there's a marketplace for the smaller size..., but I don't think that they'll ever replace the 5 1/4 inch mini floppy, because all those programms are written on mini floppies, and you'll never gonna be able to in your wildest imagination transscribe all those programms onto smaller disks. It isn't gonna be done.".
Even though I'm certainly not a fan of Microsoft, I have to say that it's probably possible to create a working solution using those tools.
However the big problem is that there are tools attracting bad programmers and admins. For example most Windows admins know very little about their system, because it seems you can live without it. Another example is PHP, it looks so simple people don't care about what they are doing. The result is insecure code. It's simmilar with C or C++, just ask around how many programmers believe integer overflows or buffer overflows are not a serious problem.
So Microsoft's fault is that they attract idiots and keep people dumb.
I mean can't it be made profitable? I mean just lower the production amounts and raise the price so it's profitable. If it is, you have a source of profit. It may not be huge, but it's something. The equipment already has been paid for.
Microsoft never really supported the older USB standards. OK, HID and Mass Storage Devices work, but there are whole other classes of standard devices like networking cards or USB->Serial converters which just don't work under Windows.
At work we have once tried it out. We bought 3 random devices, an USB->Serial converter (standard class for that), an USB->Ethernet converter (also a standard class) and an USB->WLAN adaptor. Even though the last one didn't confirm to any standards, all three worked immediately by plugging them into a Linux box. Trying the same on a Windows box resulted in cryptic error messages about "drivers". Windows still has a _long_ way to go to be ready for the desktop.
USB survived without support from Microsoft so far. If Microsoft would have supported USB from the start, the users experience would have been _way_ better. You'd have real plug and play.
I mean, how is that measured? I mean it certainly must be way more. Do they measure commercial sales of distributions? Well that's certainly misleading. For example I have a laptop which came with a Windows XP license, now it runs Ubuntu. Few Linux users actually buy their distribution and the amount of them has decreased over the years. That would also explain why the market share of Macs seems to be so large. There they simply could count the sold machines.
Measuring the user-agent strings of web-browsers also isn't verry precise as different sites tend to attract different kinds of users.
I mean it's hard to beat TeX and a modern editor in terms of usability. While on Word I need to make click-orgy's just to get a little formular and need to worry about font sizes, TeX just does all of that for me. It just works and it actually does things a typewriter does not do.
You pay the ISPs so they can constantly upgrade their network. That is their business, if they don't do this, you have 2 choices:
1. Change to an ISP which _does_ upgrade it's network. (This may not always be possible)
2. Build your own network by peering with your neighbours over WLAN or simmilar technologies. After all there's little need for your neighbours to torrent the same as you do, a central server could easily get rid of much internet bandwidth. Plus it's harder to detect by outside organisations.
It's just like in that Dilbert cartoon where they find out the best marketing strategy for their new music-player is to sell it a bit cheaper than the iPod, bundle it with the iPod and provide free access to a landfill.
Well anyhow, it's Microsoft's only choice. They won't be able to sell their newer OSes because they are not compatible. The _only_ reason why people ever bought Microsoft's product was backwards compatibility.
Everyone is ethical, even investment bankers. What's important is are the ethical values a person has.
What they probably mean is they search for people who share their ethical values.
Besides the biggest threat to network security commonly are decisions made by non technical people. If somebody says they want a secure system, but still insists on having Star Office or Microsoft Office or any of those bloated error prone software packages which don't actually do anything for you, you cannot take him seriously.
Wiered, in Germany, as well as most of the world, you can get 16 MBit DSL lines for about $40 a month unlimited, plus unlimited national calls (2 ISDN channels). And the company _still_ works very profitable. The discount providers offer ot for about $20.
Maybe "forcing" is a bit strong, but ISPs should definitely be encouraged to do so. Every packet which does not go over centraliced portions of the net makes it more stable.
Yes, but where is the problem? A line doesn't need to be equially loaded in both directions. That's just a decision beancounters made. It doesn't make much sense in real life.
Just get a line between 2 ISPs and route only the trafic between those 2 ISPs on that line until it's full. The rest can go the long way.
It's more a language problem. C(++) was never meant to run on systems with several processors. The programms are meant to be execute in a single thread of execution. If you actually want to use multiple processors it's quite hard to do.
Object oriented programming might solve some of the problems.
I don't think the server version of OSX can even do it, but nearly every version of Linux can do it. The normal version of OSX at least supports text based ssh logins.
Windows Vista Ultimate is still dumbed down. Can multiple users log into it and execute applications at the same time? On Linux many users can use a single computer at the same time. They only need X-Terminals, or computers with little storage space. (think of netbooks or nettops) You then only need to install your applications once and everybody will be able to use them. A very simmilar feature is included in the normal (=Server) versions of Windows. You can easily have 20 people log into a Windows Server at the same time working with office. The best part of it is that you don't need Windows clients as it works with just about any OS.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem is that Windows is mostly used to run legacy software. Just look at your typical Windows system and look at the fonts used in the applications. It's not rare to find the "System" font in them. That font has been phased out with Windows NT4 and Windows 95, yet many applications still haven't been updated. Now just look at the tab-order in those applications. Mostly the cursor is just jumping around wildly.
In real life Windows nobody cares about user interfaces and even if programmers cared, it's to late as most software has already been written for that plattform. Even if all programmers would decide on a new idea, it would still take several years for it to arrive at the average user.
The main problem with such setups under Windows is that most applications haven't been adapted to the "overlapping windows" feature of Windows yet. Therefore they start up in Fullscreen. Believe me, trying to read a PDF on such a large and split up screen is not much fun.
Oh and then those 30 inch displays are also to expensive to actually do that.
But where will I buy my LISP machines from then?
Yes precisely, there is very little mature code. That's why you still have buffer overruns and other security critical bugs.
New features don't have to mean that old code will be changed or made more insecure. There are many attempts at making computer systems modular so adding one piece of code will add a lot of new features to unchanged programmes. The oldest concept incorporating it is the UNIX concept where you have lots of small single-purpose programs which you can connect via pipes to serve any more complex purpose. Each of those programs can easily be made mature. So you reduce the problem to a bit of managable code to string those programs together.
Other concepts are found on object oriented operating systems (even in MacOSX) where Applications typically are just connections between stock objects. If those stock objects are made out of mature code, you get stable software.
...no significant bug has been found, but the code has regularly been reviewed.
I'm sorry, but what has MacOSX to do with mature code? Code is mature when it has lasted for _decades_ and no significant bug has been found. MacOSX is just your average kernel. OK, there are _much_ worse around, but that doesn't make OSX any better.
What _really_ is a shame that it took them 4 years to fix it.
It's not a PDA, it doesn't 'sync up' to anything. It's a full fledged portable workstation. It's not meant to manage your appointments there are _far_ cheaper solutions for that. It's meant to give you a way to do more complex calculations where ever you are, or if it's to complex, log into a more powerfull machine. You can also log into it from your desktop computer. This new version should easily be able to sustain hundreds of user logins.
It's like a laptop, but truely portable.
I thought commercial software companies all died in the 2000 bubble. Except for specialist areas where nobody wants to copy it anyhow.
BTW http://www.archive.org/details/StorageD1984 :
At about 4 minutes in, an Interview with Alan Shugart, Founder of Seagate.
Some of his statements in there:
We will not see the Floppy Disk beeing replaced by semiconductor memory.
This is the part where it really relates to "Don't Copy That Floppy"-Video:
Question: "You see this size (3,5") replacing the 5 1/4 inch disks?"
Answer: "No I don't. I think there's a marketplace for the smaller size..., but I don't think that they'll ever replace the 5 1/4 inch mini floppy, because all those programms are written on mini floppies, and you'll never gonna be able to in your wildest imagination transscribe all those programms onto smaller disks. It isn't gonna be done.".
Even though I'm certainly not a fan of Microsoft, I have to say that it's probably possible to create a working solution using those tools.
However the big problem is that there are tools attracting bad programmers and admins. For example most Windows admins know very little about their system, because it seems you can live without it. Another example is PHP, it looks so simple people don't care about what they are doing. The result is insecure code. It's simmilar with C or C++, just ask around how many programmers believe integer overflows or buffer overflows are not a serious problem.
So Microsoft's fault is that they attract idiots and keep people dumb.
I mean can't it be made profitable? I mean just lower the production amounts and raise the price so it's profitable. If it is, you have a source of profit. It may not be huge, but it's something. The equipment already has been paid for.
Microsoft never really supported the older USB standards. OK, HID and Mass Storage Devices work, but there are whole other classes of standard devices like networking cards or USB->Serial converters which just don't work under Windows.
At work we have once tried it out. We bought 3 random devices, an USB->Serial converter (standard class for that), an USB->Ethernet converter (also a standard class) and an USB->WLAN adaptor. Even though the last one didn't confirm to any standards, all three worked immediately by plugging them into a Linux box. Trying the same on a Windows box resulted in cryptic error messages about "drivers". Windows still has a _long_ way to go to be ready for the desktop.
USB survived without support from Microsoft so far. If Microsoft would have supported USB from the start, the users experience would have been _way_ better. You'd have real plug and play.
If you read through the hacker ethic, you will find that it's completely incompatible to the values enforced by any military institution.
I mean, how is that measured? I mean it certainly must be way more. Do they measure commercial sales of distributions? Well that's certainly misleading. For example I have a laptop which came with a Windows XP license, now it runs Ubuntu. Few Linux users actually buy their distribution and the amount of them has decreased over the years. That would also explain why the market share of Macs seems to be so large. There they simply could count the sold machines.
Measuring the user-agent strings of web-browsers also isn't verry precise as different sites tend to attract different kinds of users.
I mean it's hard to beat TeX and a modern editor in terms of usability. While on Word I need to make click-orgy's just to get a little formular and need to worry about font sizes, TeX just does all of that for me. It just works and it actually does things a typewriter does not do.
You pay the ISPs so they can constantly upgrade their network. That is their business, if they don't do this, you have 2 choices:
1. Change to an ISP which _does_ upgrade it's network. (This may not always be possible)
2. Build your own network by peering with your neighbours over WLAN or simmilar technologies. After all there's little need for your neighbours to torrent the same as you do, a central server could easily get rid of much internet bandwidth. Plus it's harder to detect by outside organisations.
It's just like in that Dilbert cartoon where they find out the best marketing strategy for their new music-player is to sell it a bit cheaper than the iPod, bundle it with the iPod and provide free access to a landfill.
Well anyhow, it's Microsoft's only choice. They won't be able to sell their newer OSes because they are not compatible. The _only_ reason why people ever bought Microsoft's product was backwards compatibility.
Everyone is ethical, even investment bankers. What's important is are the ethical values a person has.
What they probably mean is they search for people who share their ethical values.
Besides the biggest threat to network security commonly are decisions made by non technical people. If somebody says they want a secure system, but still insists on having Star Office or Microsoft Office or any of those bloated error prone software packages which don't actually do anything for you, you cannot take him seriously.
Wiered, in Germany, as well as most of the world, you can get 16 MBit DSL lines for about $40 a month unlimited, plus unlimited national calls (2 ISDN channels). And the company _still_ works very profitable. The discount providers offer ot for about $20.
Maybe "forcing" is a bit strong, but ISPs should definitely be encouraged to do so. Every packet which does not go over centraliced portions of the net makes it more stable.
Yes, but where is the problem? A line doesn't need to be equially loaded in both directions. That's just a decision beancounters made. It doesn't make much sense in real life.
Just get a line between 2 ISPs and route only the trafic between those 2 ISPs on that line until it's full. The rest can go the long way.
ISPs should be forced to have to peer at any POP they join. Then the Internet would potentionally be a lot more stable.
Ohh nifty. Apple should advertise that more often.
It's more a language problem. C(++) was never meant to run on systems with several processors. The programms are meant to be execute in a single thread of execution. If you actually want to use multiple processors it's quite hard to do.
Object oriented programming might solve some of the problems.
I don't think the server version of OSX can even do it, but nearly every version of Linux can do it. The normal version of OSX at least supports text based ssh logins.
Windows Vista Ultimate is still dumbed down. Can multiple users log into it and execute applications at the same time?
On Linux many users can use a single computer at the same time. They only need X-Terminals, or computers with little storage space. (think of netbooks or nettops) You then only need to install your applications once and everybody will be able to use them.
A very simmilar feature is included in the normal (=Server) versions of Windows. You can easily have 20 people log into a Windows Server at the same time working with office. The best part of it is that you don't need Windows clients as it works with just about any OS.