My thoughts, as well. The company is still supposed to be a profit driven company, government money or not (and I personally think they should have been allowed to go bankrupt... and I'm a huge supporter of American companies, so it's not like I'm just anti-America-Corporation or something). It's decisions like these, IMO, that make me think they should go bankrupt, too. =P They seemed to do pretty well, once upon a time, building trucks and whatnot. Nobody really liked Toyota or Nissan trucks 10 years ago, for anything heavy-duty, etc. To get into the electric/hybrid market, I think they really needed some good... well, innovation and technology. Not play a catch-up-to-Toyota/Honda game with my tax money.
I wouldn't mind learning how to write English so well, especially capitalization. I have a tendency to capitalize Proper Nouns even if they aren't really Proper Nouns at all, but just normal Nouns. Oh Well. I Guess it Fits Well with my 128 character Education History, Too?
Uh, very doubtful. More likely, it was the same person that can't even program a feedback thing correctly, and is running their webserver from My Documents...
This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Microsoft or IE. This is an "ignorant person" story. Unless you have some link of where MS said Firefox was unsafe, as well as all non-IE browsers?
Agreed, it was ad hom. Attempt at figuring out a perceived slant in the post. Meh, was unnecessary though, apologies.
why would you say: "it would be nice on the server side, I guess."
Because it's true. I personally do not think Windows really has/had the equivalent of bash or something (I've found batch scripts to be clunky and DOS not nearly as easy as bash), but it does have a command line which can be used. I phrased it "it would be nice..." because I haven't actually done a lot on Windows Server * aside from setting up basic functionality (DHCP, ActiveDirectory, DNS, router, etc).
As far as the knowledge-of-poster goes, I don't think you know very much about me, either, so we're even there, only I assumed it in a less subtle way than you did...:)
FWIW, I actually started with DOS as well. I never used BASIC cartridges but I actually did use BASIC. I knew that Windows ran on top of DOS, and most (hey, I was young) games that I played were DOS games. I still enjoy them once in a while, in fact. I still have a copy, on 5.25" floppies, of DOS 2.1, I think.
But I'd say I grew up using Windows, still, since I used it more than I used DOS. But I have known commands cd, rmdir, copy, etc., since I was fairly young... I think around 7?
Umm, except for XP, all versions of Windows in your list had "command.com." All DOS versions of Windows executed "autoexec.bat" at start up with the DOS shell command.com. XP has "cmd.exe"
I realize that. I used it. I started with DOS and would alternately install Windows 3.1 and Wayne Gretzky Hockey 3, as they would not both fit on my 20mb hard drive. Windows XP still has command.com by the way. But cmd is way nicer, and faster.
*you* may not have needed it.
I said I didn't need it, I didn't say I didn't use it.:)
Yes, but because *you* don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there and not used.
Again, I didn't say it wasn't there, I said Windows appeared to try to get away from it being necessary. Mac OS appeared to do the same thing.
Windows on its own is useless. The only things that make it non-useless have more to do with 3rd party support than anything Microsoft does. That's why monopolies are bad, because, even though Windows sucks, users have little practical choice.
Now I understand the rest of your post... you hate MS and hate Windows, so anything in its defense is automatically faulty somehow, even if it's the fault of the poster for presumably not realizing that Windows DID have a shell and the poster just never realized it, while at the same time arguing (I guess?) that part of Windows' problem is not having a shell...
I suppose it depends on what the admin is doing. Running a simple web server or something like that doesn't require a ton of shell power, in my experience...
That said, point taken. I think ther'es a reason Linux/UNIX is way more popular on the server side than it is on the home consumer side..:)
It looks like AMD is a better value overall, but Intel is still outperforming it... even in the 3GHz AMD vs. 2.66GHz Intel. They didn't benchmark an OC i7 I don't think...
The "do not currently have anything close" disclaimer is, I am guessing, why Intel can afford to charge $1000 for the chip. And you're comparing the 2.93GHz i7 price to the 3GHz Phenom II, whereas the benchmarks clearly show that the 2.66GHz i7 is still faster (sometimes just a little, I know) than the 3GHz Phenom II, and even mostly faster than the overclocked 3.4GHz Phenom II. So, your pricing is skewed in AMD's favor, because it is comparing specs, not performance. the i7 is getting better performance out of a 2.66GHz clocked CPU than AMD is getting out of a 3.0GHz clocked CPU... but you should be comparing price of comparable CPUs, not clock-speed-is-similar CPUs...
Arguably, it would be nice on the server side, I guess... but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
I guess it's not even fashionable on slashdot to read the comment you are replying to;) hehe.
I admit, shells and command-lines are pretty nice. If I want to know the IP of my windows box I do ipconfig, not double click the network connection.
But most people aren't running Windows Server. Most people are running Windows XP, Vista, whatever. They don't need a shell for most things... and, as someone replied to you, you can use python and perl on Windows. And there's always batch scripts;) (blech. I've written them, wicked things.)
FWIW, I'm a software tester and regularly script in perl, bash, python, and a lot of xml stuff as well. The products that I test were primarily command-line products, and I'm involved in automating testing of that side of the product, hence the scripting. But thanks for assuming ignorance;)
Just USE UNIX, then you don't need to worry about Windows copying it or not copying it.
It seems the problem is people are willing to admit that Windows has something going for it, and thus wish it would be more like UNIX in some ways. Why not wish UNIX was more like Windows? I guess that's what some distro's of Linux are doing. Finally.:)
(yes, I know, Windows has "95% of users" going for it... but not always...)
UNIX wasn't exactly one of those home-user targeted operating systems. It makes sense to have a rather powerful shell on it, scripting abilities, compilers, etc.
Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., all the non-server ones, didn't need a shell. I grew up using Windows and never once needed something like that. Arguably, it would be nice on the server side, I guess... but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
Besides. If they included a shell, everyone would just complain how they're copying UNIX and thus are even more useless.:)
It'd be interesting to know the differences between various paper manufacturing methods and how much "energy" or whatever is actually used. In other words, is the creation of this "green" paper from wombat poo actually any better than using renewable tree resources?
Slashdot Mirror
Admittedly, I was homeschooled, but I was taught about quarks.
"day" is based on the sun I believe. You may want to change your terminology when cursing the sun. ;)
Nah, I just read the wrong one ;)
Based on the copyright ("Copyright (c) 2009 Xandros Incorporated") I would venture to guess that Presto Linux comes out of Xandros Linux.
My thoughts, as well. The company is still supposed to be a profit driven company, government money or not (and I personally think they should have been allowed to go bankrupt... and I'm a huge supporter of American companies, so it's not like I'm just anti-America-Corporation or something). It's decisions like these, IMO, that make me think they should go bankrupt, too. =P They seemed to do pretty well, once upon a time, building trucks and whatnot. Nobody really liked Toyota or Nissan trucks 10 years ago, for anything heavy-duty, etc. To get into the electric/hybrid market, I think they really needed some good ... well, innovation and technology. Not play a catch-up-to-Toyota/Honda game with my tax money.
Let's see... office + "defeat a boss." Sounds good. ;)
http://oitplaza.colorado.gov:8080/oitplaza is unresponsive. (link taken from their "Home" link...)
I wouldn't mind learning how to write English so well, especially capitalization. I have a tendency to capitalize Proper Nouns even if they aren't really Proper Nouns at all, but just normal Nouns. Oh Well. I Guess it Fits Well with my 128 character Education History, Too?
Uh, very doubtful. More likely, it was the same person that can't even program a feedback thing correctly, and is running their webserver from My Documents ...
This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with Microsoft or IE. This is an "ignorant person" story. Unless you have some link of where MS said Firefox was unsafe, as well as all non-IE browsers?
I wonder if the website was hacked already and its a fake ;) :)
Agreed, it was ad hom. Attempt at figuring out a perceived slant in the post. Meh, was unnecessary though, apologies.
why would you say: "it would be nice on the server side, I guess."
Because it's true. I personally do not think Windows really has/had the equivalent of bash or something (I've found batch scripts to be clunky and DOS not nearly as easy as bash), but it does have a command line which can be used. I phrased it "it would be nice..." because I haven't actually done a lot on Windows Server * aside from setting up basic functionality (DHCP, ActiveDirectory, DNS, router, etc).
As far as the knowledge-of-poster goes, I don't think you know very much about me, either, so we're even there, only I assumed it in a less subtle way than you did... :)
Hehe, hi gramps.
FWIW, I actually started with DOS as well. I never used BASIC cartridges but I actually did use BASIC. I knew that Windows ran on top of DOS, and most (hey, I was young) games that I played were DOS games. I still enjoy them once in a while, in fact. I still have a copy, on 5.25" floppies, of DOS 2.1, I think.
But I'd say I grew up using Windows, still, since I used it more than I used DOS. But I have known commands cd, rmdir, copy, etc., since I was fairly young... I think around 7?
Umm, except for XP, all versions of Windows in your list had "command.com." All DOS versions of Windows executed "autoexec.bat" at start up with the DOS shell command.com. XP has "cmd.exe"
I realize that. I used it. I started with DOS and would alternately install Windows 3.1 and Wayne Gretzky Hockey 3, as they would not both fit on my 20mb hard drive. Windows XP still has command.com by the way. But cmd is way nicer, and faster.
*you* may not have needed it.
I said I didn't need it, I didn't say I didn't use it. :)
Yes, but because *you* don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there and not used.
Again, I didn't say it wasn't there, I said Windows appeared to try to get away from it being necessary. Mac OS appeared to do the same thing.
Windows on its own is useless. The only things that make it non-useless have more to do with 3rd party support than anything Microsoft does. That's why monopolies are bad, because, even though Windows sucks, users have little practical choice.
Now I understand the rest of your post... you hate MS and hate Windows, so anything in its defense is automatically faulty somehow, even if it's the fault of the poster for presumably not realizing that Windows DID have a shell and the poster just never realized it, while at the same time arguing (I guess?) that part of Windows' problem is not having a shell...
I suppose it depends on what the admin is doing. Running a simple web server or something like that doesn't require a ton of shell power, in my experience...
That said, point taken. I think ther'es a reason Linux/UNIX is way more popular on the server side than it is on the home consumer side.. :)
But goes up hills slower. ;)
It looks like AMD is a better value overall, but Intel is still outperforming it... even in the 3GHz AMD vs. 2.66GHz Intel. They didn't benchmark an OC i7 I don't think...
The "do not currently have anything close" disclaimer is, I am guessing, why Intel can afford to charge $1000 for the chip. And you're comparing the 2.93GHz i7 price to the 3GHz Phenom II, whereas the benchmarks clearly show that the 2.66GHz i7 is still faster (sometimes just a little, I know) than the 3GHz Phenom II, and even mostly faster than the overclocked 3.4GHz Phenom II. So, your pricing is skewed in AMD's favor, because it is comparing specs, not performance. the i7 is getting better performance out of a 2.66GHz clocked CPU than AMD is getting out of a 3.0GHz clocked CPU... but you should be comparing price of comparable CPUs, not clock-speed-is-similar CPUs...
Also, for those interested in quick specs between the two processors:
# Series: Phenom II X4 ($219) # Hyper Transports: 4000MHz
# L1 Cache: 4 x 128KB
# L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB
# L3 Cache: 4MB
# Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
# 64 bit Support: Yes
# Voltage: 0.875-1.425V
# Series: Core i7 ($288)
# QPI: 4.8GT/s
# L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB
# L3 Cache: 8MB
# Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
# 64 bit Support: Yes
# Hyper-Threading Support: Yes
# Virtualization Technology Support: Yes
Intel i7 (2.6GHZ I believe) ~ $288 on newegg.com, phenom II 3ghz ~ $219 (2.6GHZ version ~$170)
Hence, me stating the following?
Arguably, it would be nice on the server side, I guess... but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
I guess it's not even fashionable on slashdot to read the comment you are replying to ;) hehe.
I admit, shells and command-lines are pretty nice. If I want to know the IP of my windows box I do ipconfig, not double click the network connection.
But most people aren't running Windows Server. Most people are running Windows XP, Vista, whatever. They don't need a shell for most things... and, as someone replied to you, you can use python and perl on Windows. And there's always batch scripts ;) (blech. I've written them, wicked things.)
FWIW, I'm a software tester and regularly script in perl, bash, python, and a lot of xml stuff as well. The products that I test were primarily command-line products, and I'm involved in automating testing of that side of the product, hence the scripting. But thanks for assuming ignorance ;)
Hm, whoosh, I felt something above my head... $699?
Just USE UNIX, then you don't need to worry about Windows copying it or not copying it.
It seems the problem is people are willing to admit that Windows has something going for it, and thus wish it would be more like UNIX in some ways. Why not wish UNIX was more like Windows? I guess that's what some distro's of Linux are doing. Finally. :)
(yes, I know, Windows has "95% of users" going for it... but not always...)
Because most Windows users need a shell. Right.
UNIX wasn't exactly one of those home-user targeted operating systems. It makes sense to have a rather powerful shell on it, scripting abilities, compilers, etc.
Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., all the non-server ones, didn't need a shell. I grew up using Windows and never once needed something like that. Arguably, it would be nice on the server side, I guess... but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
Besides. If they included a shell, everyone would just complain how they're copying UNIX and thus are even more useless. :)
English titles and shell scripts don't mix. :)
It'd be interesting to know the differences between various paper manufacturing methods and how much "energy" or whatever is actually used. In other words, is the creation of this "green" paper from wombat poo actually any better than using renewable tree resources?