There's this thing called a wide-angle or fisheye lens. I can take a picture of a building 100' wide without needing to be 100 feet away from it. Detail sucks, but that's why it's called a "wide angle".
I never said Exchange was the first. I know that to be false, I was using Notes long before Exchange was even a blip on Microsoft's radar. I will confess that it's been a good five or six years since I've used notes, but in the short span between Exchange 4 (1996?) and 1998, Outlook surpassed Notes in usability, and almost equalled it in extensibility in terms of app development.
Corporate Time is a POS in comparison. Well, I guess if I lower my standards a bit in terms of polish and usability (not just cute wysiwyg crap), it's equivalent. Let me ask a serious question tho, can the Notes client run standalone? I don't remember it being able to do so, but I could be wrong.
Would Exchange have achieved the penetration it did if Outlook wasn't bundled with Office? I don't know. Outlook was available as a free download for all of 1997, 1998 and as recently as 2000. And that's why I use it. It stands alone, doesn't require some backend groupware. In some respects, Mozilla is coming close in terms of a straight PIM.
I just don't think any of the alternatives (especially the ones I've tried, CT, Notes(long ago, granted) have anywhere near the polish and ease of use.
Although I love Evolution dearly, and don't really care that it copies Outlook so closely, I wanted to preempt everyone from trying to use it as an argument.
Which is a good thing if the user is using webmail. Recent versions of exchange have single-instance storage so that file only consumes one instance worth of space, even if you send it to 1000 recipients.
And if you send a file to someone outside your company, a link to a file server certainly isn't going to be useful. In today's environment of outsourcing and not knowing who's going to be sitting at the desk next to you tomorrow, it's a smart thing to be doing.
Exchange forms. That's it. That's Exchange's Big Contribution to computing.
Every office I've been in could replace Word, Excel and Access with any other 3rd party application, Lotus, Corel, Borland, etc.
Name me one Windows based groupware app that you could replace Outlook with. Evolution doesn't count since it doesn't run on Windows, and is a BLATANT copy of Outlook.
For 99% of the users out there, Exchange is simply an integrated calendar. Fairly useless, highly expensive and simply overkill.
For the other 1% who leverage Outlook's VBA capabilities, it's actually a fairly power collaboration platform where I can build applications and work with my coworkers or other audiences to manage my tasks. I've built customer support systems, CRM tools and countless other custom one-off applications on the Outlook/Exchange platform.
And Exchange 2000 has brought even greater flexibility with the Exchange event model that lets me add server-side logic into the mix.
It's no better than web based apps, for sure. But for people standardizing their business around Outlook, it's no worse.
I guess I take exception to this, because in my experience in 1997 Intel and the PII was creeping up on just about everyone, and the price point for workstation class hardware was dropping like a rock. At least in the graphics workstation arena (ProE), the big Unix vendors lost once the likes of AccelGraphics, Intergraph, 3Dfx and others started the 3d revolution on the PC.
I'll concede that on the back end, perhaps Itanium had an impact, but in the workstation market, no-one was willing to wait 6 months to a year (Real Soon Now) for a processor when a PII 450 was comparable to the hardware already available at a price point that could NOT be beat.
You will recall that HP killed the Alpha after it's acquisition of Compaq, which was still making them and selling them in 2003. AFAIK, you can still buy Alphaservers, so I'm not sure how "dead" it is. HP (when discussing the Itanium) had decided it would rather side with Intel in their next gen operation to guarantee quantity and bet on performance, because PA-Risc SUCKED hardcore and was getting it's lunch fed to it by DEC/Compaq.
Sun hasn't held parity with Intel on processor power since 1999-2000, with a possible exception for floating point performance (I lost touch with FLOPS around then). In integer performance, Intel (Including AMD) smokes a Sparc anyday.
I guess you would need to define when "the hype was at it's peak" for me to argue the point with you. As early as 1996, long before Itanium was scheduled for release, PPC was already facing a downturn in the industry (why NT 4.0 PPC was cancelled), and SGI was already looking at moving to Intel in the workstation arena. Itanium had nothing to do with this.
With all the brouhaha about simpleminded patent examiners and useless patents being granted, I'm wondering if it isn't all deliberate?
If after a few stupid examples a number of patent examiners have gotten it into their heads to sabotage the whole process by granting increasingly more moronic patents? All being done in hopes of getting the whole process fixed...
9.2 and 9.3 were different. Eval CD's (which are install CD's without some packages, perl-mods, apache, tomcat, etc). Basically End-User CD's, not full "SuSE Professional".
They were released to the FTP site practically the same day as the boxed release.
After I posted that, I went back and reread the article you posted. At first, it made mention of operating budget, but then digressed into trade deficits. I would have posted a retraction, but I thought the source was confused.
The trade deficit is NOT the same as the operating budget deficit. The trade deficit means that imports exceed exports, not that the government spends more than it received from taxation.
Point in fact, Hans Blix removed his inspection teams from Iraq for this supposed obstinance on the part of the Iraqi government for refusing to cooperate.
Shortly before cruise missiles fell on Iraqi targets.
My problem with Microsoft is that they come so close to relative perfection, so very close, you can almost breathe on it and see it waver before your eyes... but they do something absolutely inane and make whatever it is less than it could be.
Take DFS for example. I want to set up a master DFS server to help transition to a DFS/replicated environment. But I don't want to pollute my drives with empty directories. So can you do the following:
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that Eclipse and Visual Studio are on par, and that Evolution almost, ALMOST trumps Outlook (but not Outlook + Exchange).
As for OpenGL, both HL2 and Doom3 support OpenGL, so I'm not sure exactly which "features" it's missing.
Just like a bitch in heat you don't want bred, NEVER leave the PHB's to their own devices. You'll get in more trouble that way.
Um, no.
There's this thing called a wide-angle or fisheye lens. I can take a picture of a building 100' wide without needing to be 100 feet away from it. Detail sucks, but that's why it's called a "wide angle".
I never said Exchange was the first. I know that to be false, I was using Notes long before Exchange was even a blip on Microsoft's radar. I will confess that it's been a good five or six years since I've used notes, but in the short span between Exchange 4 (1996?) and 1998, Outlook surpassed Notes in usability, and almost equalled it in extensibility in terms of app development.
Corporate Time is a POS in comparison. Well, I guess if I lower my standards a bit in terms of polish and usability (not just cute wysiwyg crap), it's equivalent. Let me ask a serious question tho, can the Notes client run standalone? I don't remember it being able to do so, but I could be wrong.
Would Exchange have achieved the penetration it did if Outlook wasn't bundled with Office? I don't know. Outlook was available as a free download for all of 1997, 1998 and as recently as 2000. And that's why I use it. It stands alone, doesn't require some backend groupware. In some respects, Mozilla is coming close in terms of a straight PIM.
I just don't think any of the alternatives (especially the ones I've tried, CT, Notes(long ago, granted) have anywhere near the polish and ease of use.
But that wasn't my argument, I guess.
Although I love Evolution dearly, and don't really care that it copies Outlook so closely, I wanted to preempt everyone from trying to use it as an argument.
You have up to a year to apply for a patent for something you invent. I'm not sure if this applies if you invent and sell it...
Which is a good thing if the user is using webmail. Recent versions of exchange have single-instance storage so that file only consumes one instance worth of space, even if you send it to 1000 recipients.
And if you send a file to someone outside your company, a link to a file server certainly isn't going to be useful. In today's environment of outsourcing and not knowing who's going to be sitting at the desk next to you tomorrow, it's a smart thing to be doing.
Exchange forms. That's it. That's Exchange's Big Contribution to computing.
Every office I've been in could replace Word, Excel and Access with any other 3rd party application, Lotus, Corel, Borland, etc.
Name me one Windows based groupware app that you could replace Outlook with. Evolution doesn't count since it doesn't run on Windows, and is a BLATANT copy of Outlook.
For 99% of the users out there, Exchange is simply an integrated calendar. Fairly useless, highly expensive and simply overkill.
For the other 1% who leverage Outlook's VBA capabilities, it's actually a fairly power collaboration platform where I can build applications and work with my coworkers or other audiences to manage my tasks. I've built customer support systems, CRM tools and countless other custom one-off applications on the Outlook/Exchange platform.
And Exchange 2000 has brought even greater flexibility with the Exchange event model that lets me add server-side logic into the mix.
It's no better than web based apps, for sure. But for people standardizing their business around Outlook, it's no worse.
I guess I take exception to this, because in my experience in 1997 Intel and the PII was creeping up on just about everyone, and the price point for workstation class hardware was dropping like a rock. At least in the graphics workstation arena (ProE), the big Unix vendors lost once the likes of AccelGraphics, Intergraph, 3Dfx and others started the 3d revolution on the PC.
I'll concede that on the back end, perhaps Itanium had an impact, but in the workstation market, no-one was willing to wait 6 months to a year (Real Soon Now) for a processor when a PII 450 was comparable to the hardware already available at a price point that could NOT be beat.
You will recall that HP killed the Alpha after it's acquisition of Compaq, which was still making them and selling them in 2003. AFAIK, you can still buy Alphaservers, so I'm not sure how "dead" it is. HP (when discussing the Itanium) had decided it would rather side with Intel in their next gen operation to guarantee quantity and bet on performance, because PA-Risc SUCKED hardcore and was getting it's lunch fed to it by DEC/Compaq.
Sun hasn't held parity with Intel on processor power since 1999-2000, with a possible exception for floating point performance (I lost touch with FLOPS around then). In integer performance, Intel (Including AMD) smokes a Sparc anyday.
I guess you would need to define when "the hype was at it's peak" for me to argue the point with you. As early as 1996, long before Itanium was scheduled for release, PPC was already facing a downturn in the industry (why NT 4.0 PPC was cancelled), and SGI was already looking at moving to Intel in the workstation arena. Itanium had nothing to do with this.
Antiquated? Methinks you know not of what you speak.
Netburst kicks ass when doing things like multimedia. It just sucks for general purpose computing.
Itanium didn't kill Alpha/MIPS/Sun. The low price and increasing performance of the Pentium III did that.
Interesting how that coincides with the Mac on Intel?
With all the brouhaha about simpleminded patent examiners and useless patents being granted, I'm wondering if it isn't all deliberate?
If after a few stupid examples a number of patent examiners have gotten it into their heads to sabotage the whole process by granting increasingly more moronic patents? All being done in hopes of getting the whole process fixed...
9.2 and 9.3 were different. Eval CD's (which are install CD's without some packages, perl-mods, apache, tomcat, etc). Basically End-User CD's, not full "SuSE Professional".
They were released to the FTP site practically the same day as the boxed release.
Try debugging a boot-time problem on a machine with:
:(
No monitor
No keyboard
Ergo, the POS Dell Powervaults.
Once NT starts booting, no more serial output.
After I posted that, I went back and reread the article you posted. At first, it made mention of operating budget, but then digressed into trade deficits. I would have posted a retraction, but I thought the source was confused.
The trade deficit is NOT the same as the operating budget deficit. The trade deficit means that imports exceed exports, not that the government spends more than it received from taxation.
Point in fact, Hans Blix removed his inspection teams from Iraq for this supposed obstinance on the part of the Iraqi government for refusing to cooperate.
Shortly before cruise missiles fell on Iraqi targets.
Make of that what you will.
If you can't manage it from a serial console (especially if it's sold as an "appliance" like the Dell Powervault) it's not ready for MY datacenter.
Not only that, but it's at incredible speeds compared to most aircraft. 200+mph
Most RSI I've seen has more to do with improper mouse usage than it does keyboard usage.
I don't understand why their Natural(TM) keyboard has been bastardized so much...
If I could put a blue-tooth adapter on my Microsoft Natural (version 1.0) keyboards (I have 3) I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I especially love the idiots already suing Air France for that Canada "crash" when unlike most aircrash passengers, they all got to "walk away".
My problem with Microsoft is that they come so close to relative perfection, so very close, you can almost breathe on it and see it waver before your eyes... but they do something absolutely inane and make whatever it is less than it could be.
:(
Take DFS for example. I want to set up a master DFS server to help transition to a DFS/replicated environment. But I don't want to pollute my drives with empty directories. So can you do the following:
C:\dfsroot\Marketing\<targetlink>
C:\dfsroot\Development\<targetlink>
No. You can't. I can't even do:
c:\dfsroots\Marketing-dfsroot\<targetlink>
c:\dfsroots\Development-dfsroots\<targetlink>
Simply supporting a directory structure to help make management simple, rather than:
c:\Marketing-dfsroot
c:\Development-dfsroot
c:\Support-dfsroot
etc.
So close to perfection. So so far away.