But Windows markets in Australia. Does Red Hat / SuSe / etc? If not, then it is relevant, cause there is no local distro marketing and no outsiders making a move. I don't know, I hail from the USA.
If QT has plugins into Win32, it must be missing that functionality (that Win32 already has).
Doesn't plug into Win32. Its a replacement for the Win32 (MFC/.net) calls you would otherwise make. Same as *Step.
You say Cocoa/Objective-C has 5% of the market, so you use QT. Do you have any idea what kind of penetration QT has?
Doesn't matter, once its compiled it just works on the target platform (win/mac/lin/embedded). Cocoa restricts me to Mac only.
The fact that QT is harder to use, targets less systems, supports fewer languages (and the primary one being obscure)...
If you are a C++ programmer Qt is a breeze. Qt works on all the desktops out there and on embedded systems, what other systems are there? you haven't told me. And it offers funcionality that *Step doesn't have. And why would I port from c++ to c? Or to objective-c? And give up operator overloading (say what you want but its useful as hell in math and sciences when you are working with vectors and matrices), templates (similar arguments), automatic type casting? Hell no.
The fact that you call C++ obscure makes it obvious that you are an idiot or trolling. I was going to answer blow by blow but you don't deserve it. You have been moderated appropriately, go away.
Comparable to a Athlon 64 X2 (that's a desktop chip) with way less power draw (both idle and peak load).
Other factors exist too... AMD used to have a reputation for poor QA on the line, and while they seem to have overcome it, hey history is a stinger when you are dealing with companies like Apple.
(Not mentioning the obvious: Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites.)
And don't forget about America's Space Prize a $50 million dollar prize for the development of a reusable vehicle to service http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/">Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space hotel. (Robert Bigelow owns the "Budget Suites of America" hoetl chain). Several contendors for the prize at the moment.
And actually the american government is quite progressive on commercial space travel. They have an office: the office of Commercial Space Transportation. They actually recently put out a 120+ page proposal on regulations for human spaceflight, open for suggestions from the "players". Revisions are being suggested from companies and actually heeded. The system is working quite well.
Just from discussing it with customers of mine (who pay $150,000 for a week in Vegas for 2 people, what's $150,000 to hit space?), I bet there are at least 100,000 people in the world who would pay $50,000 to travel.
I've read studies that have similar numbers of people willing to pay bigger dollar amounts. The market is there; thats why the companies listed, among others, are working on a solution.
For anyone who has done more research than I could, what are the obstacles to private research? There's a market, there's a will, so there must be a way. Who is putting the kibosh on it?
Money. Gotta get those venture capitalists to see the vision. There are safer investments than human space travel. The companies that are most likely to succeed are the ones that are self-funded (see the ones with big names next to them) or the ones that handle both commercial and govenment contracts (for example, Xcor does government research, and spaceX does government launches. It pays the bills and bolsters investor confidence.)
That's whats used in this house. XP sp2 here, linux box on the the other wall, need both depending on the task. I dont get viruses. Common sense unfortunately is lacking among the masses (including linux and mac users. Thats why they think they are impervious to viruses and other attacks)
However, there is money. People are willing to invest in DRM. Content providers are willing to use DRM that are less than 100% effective. So long as there is money in DRM, as in any other business, there will be people working at it. (You think Google, Microsoft, Sony, et. al. are doing this at a loss?)
I have 2 identical boxes at work. Very nice boxes. One runs FC4, the other runs XP. I have to generate some documents on the FC4 box and then move them to the XP box. Please tell me, why has OO.org crashed 4 times in the past 4 months? And why hasn't Office 2003... ever crashed? I'm performing the same operations. If anything I perform the more intensive operations on the XP box.
My coworker has 1 box - FC4. For awhile it refused to boot - he'd have to restart it several times, it would hang up on mounting the file system - the FILE SYSTEM. But kick it and reboot a few times and it would work.
I repeat, my windows box works fine.
I submit to you, two factors.
The first is the user. A compotent user will have a better experiance in any environment. Your wife was an idiot. If you can lose "a couple hours of work" by not going to File->save every once in awhile, well, you kind of get what is coming to you. Sorry.
The second is the software and operating system. Particularly the configurations, although some software is doomed from the beginning. Doesnt matter if it is Windows or Linux. It will f*ck up. I've seen both. Again, I've had more problems with OO.org than Office 2k3. And my coworkers FC4 wouldn't boot on the first 3-7 tries (reformat solved it. Couldn't pin the problem). And I've seen NT4 machines with damn near 2 year uptimes. Windows doesn't crash. Stupid users and poorly written software does. There are enough cases of windows servers lasting godawful long times (And don't tell me I should be patching - back in the NT days we didn't, there were only 6.5 major service packs, and nowadays you don't need every little patch anyways if you have a good firewall) and I've seen Linux boxes that can't stay afloat. IF you set it up right it will last. So it all comes back to the user. If your dumb, well you get whats coming to you.
Sorry if its a rant. I use Windows and Linux. Right tool for the right job. My windows box works just as well as my Linux box. Guess I'm just better than you at setting it up and keeping it running. I have no other explanation. Stupid users, stupid problems.
Not revelant for the power levels we are talking about. I've wired a computer to my car and there is no difference in my miles per gallon. There is a significant difference in the draw of a computer and the load of a short circuit:)
yeah, my suggestion was get a cheap DC-AC converter from Radio Shack ($20 on sale) and plug your computer's AC-DC convertor into there. You don't need efficiency in a car. Pick price over performance. The energy is surplus and going to waste regardless of whether you use it or not.
and instead of a dc-dc converter why not get a dc-ac converter? Inefficient but a car engine is churning out plenty of surplus energy and its not like you have to pay for it... efficiency isnt a factor, cost is.
Are you sure Microsoft is staying afloat on much thinner margins than Apple?
Pretty sure. Their volume is orders of magnitude greater than Apple. They are profitable, are they not? You mention Office... Office is the Microsoft cash cow.
See, for $499 I could either get an Imac Mini from Apple or, again for $499, I could get a CD in a thin cardboard box and a license to use the professional version of MS Office from Microsoft.
(1) its only $244 from Froogle. And no, not an upgrade. The real thing (which, by the way comes with licenses for up to three machines, simultaneously...). http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=microsoft+offi ce+2003+professional+retail&btnG=Search+Froogle&lm ode=unknown And sure, you could buy and Imac Mini for $255 more. (Or you could get a similarly specced Dell, with monitor and keyboard, no interest till 2007, with office installed for cheaper... I just specced, why don't you? Or are you sold on paying the Apple Tax?) But why?
Now that Apple is switching to Intel hardware we will know the truth. I think we will see similar hardware in apple and non-apple platforms, and we will see the prices, and truth will be told.
Personally I believe people who buy into Apple pay a premium for their hardware and their OS. It is simple economics - smaller market share, they have to make a higher yield per machine to make enough money to stay afloat, whereas Microsoft/Dell/*insert notebook manufacturer here* can stay afloat on much thinner margins by sheer volume.
... its just that they prefer Solaris for at least one reason stated. Obviously they have a thing for Linux, because they are deploying it massively on the desktop, where most businesses would just slap a copy of Windows...
FTA: Brack's team instead runs Sun Solaris 8 for its main servers. He cited the OS's more stable, reliable, and longer lifecycle as one of the key reasons for this deployment.
OK, good for you, you can spend an hour digging around to find the worst screen shot of your opponent and the best of your proponent. I've designed better. My main tenent still stands: Cocoa only holds for Macs, which have a 5% market share. Who cares about 5%?
The discussion is about C++. Who cares about other programming languages (Java, Python). Now compare the 3 API's. wxWidgets and QT are skinnable. What about GNUstep? Nope. "moc C++" OK I give you that. But its still a decent API to work with and a breeze to port. As in, you do nothing to port it. (been there, done that)
"That's not subjective either."
I saw no mention of wxWidgets or QT in there. Nice try.
" GNUstep runs on X11, Cairo, Win32/GDI, and it can also be recompiled on MacOSX." (But why would you want to? You have Cocoa? You are talking yourself in circles... )... "QT works on less platforms than GNUstep,"
x11? Check. Win32? Check. MacOSX? Check. Embedded? Check. Cairo? According to the KDE-Qt forums: http://dot.kde.org/1135084395/1135100106/113518523 0/ you could. but why? Qt already has all the functionality of Cairo. You could write a backend into Cairo if you really wanted to (mentioned in the same forum... ) but Qt is quicker and has all the same functionality. Which begs the question... if GNUstep has plugins into Cairo, it must be missing that functionality (that Qt already has). Please respond:
$30 a month, cheaper than getting a landline with similar features through BellSouth... and cheaper than the local competitors for a similar plan./shrug
Slashdot Mirror
Ceramic is also a good surface to mitigate growth of bacteria, regardless of disinfecting. (not that you should now stop disinfecting your toilets) :)
But Windows markets in Australia. Does Red Hat / SuSe / etc? If not, then it is relevant, cause there is no local distro marketing and no outsiders making a move. I don't know, I hail from the USA.
If QT has plugins into Win32, it must be missing that functionality (that Win32 already has).
...
Doesn't plug into Win32. Its a replacement for the Win32 (MFC/.net) calls you would otherwise make. Same as *Step.
You say Cocoa/Objective-C has 5% of the market, so you use QT. Do you have any idea what kind of penetration QT has?
Doesn't matter, once its compiled it just works on the target platform (win/mac/lin/embedded). Cocoa restricts me to Mac only.
The fact that QT is harder to use, targets less systems, supports fewer languages (and the primary one being obscure)
If you are a C++ programmer Qt is a breeze. Qt works on all the desktops out there and on embedded systems, what other systems are there? you haven't told me. And it offers funcionality that *Step doesn't have. And why would I port from c++ to c? Or to objective-c? And give up operator overloading (say what you want but its useful as hell in math and sciences when you are working with vectors and matrices), templates (similar arguments), automatic type casting? Hell no.
The fact that you call C++ obscure makes it obvious that you are an idiot or trolling. I was going to answer blow by blow but you don't deserve it. You have been moderated appropriately, go away.
Yonah
Comparable to a Athlon 64 X2 (that's a desktop chip) with way less power draw (both idle and peak load).
Other factors exist too... AMD used to have a reputation for poor QA on the line, and while they seem to have overcome it, hey history is a stinger when you are dealing with companies like Apple.
cause Taco is a wimp and plays on a PvE server :)
... you just havent looked hard enough:
xcor
blue origin (Jeff Bezos, Amazon)
spaceX
Armadillo Aerospace (John Carmack)
(Not mentioning the obvious: Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites.)
And don't forget about America's Space Prize a $50 million dollar prize for the development of a reusable vehicle to service http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/">Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space hotel. (Robert Bigelow owns the "Budget Suites of America" hoetl chain). Several contendors for the prize at the moment.
And actually the american government is quite progressive on commercial space travel. They have an office: the office of Commercial Space Transportation. They actually recently put out a 120+ page proposal on regulations for human spaceflight, open for suggestions from the "players". Revisions are being suggested from companies and actually heeded. The system is working quite well.
Just from discussing it with customers of mine (who pay $150,000 for a week in Vegas for 2 people, what's $150,000 to hit space?), I bet there are at least 100,000 people in the world who would pay $50,000 to travel.
I've read studies that have similar numbers of people willing to pay bigger dollar amounts. The market is there; thats why the companies listed, among others, are working on a solution.
For anyone who has done more research than I could, what are the obstacles to private research? There's a market, there's a will, so there must be a way. Who is putting the kibosh on it?
Money. Gotta get those venture capitalists to see the vision. There are safer investments than human space travel. The companies that are most likely to succeed are the ones that are self-funded (see the ones with big names next to them) or the ones that handle both commercial and govenment contracts (for example, Xcor does government research, and spaceX does government launches. It pays the bills and bolsters investor confidence.)
-everphilski-
That's whats used in this house. XP sp2 here, linux box on the the other wall, need both depending on the task. I dont get viruses. Common sense unfortunately is lacking among the masses (including linux and mac users. Thats why they think they are impervious to viruses and other attacks)
Perhaps
However, there is money. People are willing to invest in DRM. Content providers are willing to use DRM that are less than 100% effective. So long as there is money in DRM, as in any other business, there will be people working at it. (You think Google, Microsoft, Sony, et. al. are doing this at a loss?)
I have 2 identical boxes at work. Very nice boxes. One runs FC4, the other runs XP. I have to generate some documents on the FC4 box and then move them to the XP box. Please tell me, why has OO.org crashed 4 times in the past 4 months? And why hasn't Office 2003 ... ever crashed? I'm performing the same operations. If anything I perform the more intensive operations on the XP box.
My coworker has 1 box - FC4. For awhile it refused to boot - he'd have to restart it several times, it would hang up on mounting the file system - the FILE SYSTEM. But kick it and reboot a few times and it would work.
I repeat, my windows box works fine.
I submit to you, two factors.
The first is the user. A compotent user will have a better experiance in any environment. Your wife was an idiot. If you can lose "a couple hours of work" by not going to File->save every once in awhile, well, you kind of get what is coming to you. Sorry.
The second is the software and operating system. Particularly the configurations, although some software is doomed from the beginning. Doesnt matter if it is Windows or Linux. It will f*ck up. I've seen both. Again, I've had more problems with OO.org than Office 2k3. And my coworkers FC4 wouldn't boot on the first 3-7 tries (reformat solved it. Couldn't pin the problem). And I've seen NT4 machines with damn near 2 year uptimes. Windows doesn't crash. Stupid users and poorly written software does. There are enough cases of windows servers lasting godawful long times (And don't tell me I should be patching - back in the NT days we didn't, there were only 6.5 major service packs, and nowadays you don't need every little patch anyways if you have a good firewall) and I've seen Linux boxes that can't stay afloat. IF you set it up right it will last. So it all comes back to the user. If your dumb, well you get whats coming to you.
Sorry if its a rant. I use Windows and Linux. Right tool for the right job. My windows box works just as well as my Linux box. Guess I'm just better than you at setting it up and keeping it running. I have no other explanation. Stupid users, stupid problems.
I threw out my BP6 yesterday. Wife and i live in a 1 bedroom apartment and we were running out of space. I have such fond memories of that thing.
Lactose intolorent, as a child my mom used to feed me orange juice and Rice Crispies...
Not revelant for the power levels we are talking about. I've wired a computer to my car and there is no difference in my miles per gallon. There is a significant difference in the draw of a computer and the load of a short circuit :)
yeah, my suggestion was get a cheap DC-AC converter from Radio Shack ($20 on sale) and plug your computer's AC-DC convertor into there. You don't need efficiency in a car. Pick price over performance. The energy is surplus and going to waste regardless of whether you use it or not.
cheap, small and capable
Pick Two...
and instead of a dc-dc converter why not get a dc-ac converter? Inefficient but a car engine is churning out plenty of surplus energy and its not like you have to pay for it... efficiency isnt a factor, cost is.
-everphilski-
Are you sure Microsoft is staying afloat on much thinner margins than Apple?
i ce+2003+professional+retail&btnG=Search+Froogle&lm ode=unknown
Pretty sure. Their volume is orders of magnitude greater than Apple. They are profitable, are they not? You mention Office... Office is the Microsoft cash cow.
See, for $499 I could either get an Imac Mini from Apple or, again for $499, I could get a CD in a thin cardboard box and a license to use the professional version of MS Office from Microsoft.
(1) its only $244 from Froogle. And no, not an upgrade. The real thing (which, by the way comes with licenses for up to three machines, simultaneously...). http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=microsoft+off
And sure, you could buy and Imac Mini for $255 more. (Or you could get a similarly specced Dell, with monitor and keyboard, no interest till 2007, with office installed for cheaper... I just specced, why don't you? Or are you sold on paying the Apple Tax?) But why?
ipod sparc
Ouch, not in my pocket...
Now that Apple is switching to Intel hardware we will know the truth. I think we will see similar hardware in apple and non-apple platforms, and we will see the prices, and truth will be told.
Personally I believe people who buy into Apple pay a premium for their hardware and their OS. It is simple economics - smaller market share, they have to make a higher yield per machine to make enough money to stay afloat, whereas Microsoft/Dell/*insert notebook manufacturer here* can stay afloat on much thinner margins by sheer volume.
... its just that they prefer Solaris for at least one reason stated. Obviously they have a thing for Linux, because they are deploying it massively on the desktop, where most businesses would just slap a copy of Windows...
FTA: Brack's team instead runs Sun Solaris 8 for its main servers. He cited the OS's more stable, reliable, and longer lifecycle as one of the key reasons for this deployment.
OK, good for you, you can spend an hour digging around to find the worst screen shot of your opponent and the best of your proponent. I've designed better. My main tenent still stands: Cocoa only holds for Macs, which have a 5% market share. Who cares about 5%?
... "QT works on less platforms than GNUstep,"
3 0/ you could. but why? Qt already has all the functionality of Cairo. You could write a backend into Cairo if you really wanted to (mentioned in the same forum ... ) but Qt is quicker and has all the same functionality. Which begs the question... if GNUstep has plugins into Cairo, it must be missing that functionality (that Qt already has). Please respond:
The discussion is about C++. Who cares about other programming languages (Java, Python). Now compare the 3 API's. wxWidgets and QT are skinnable. What about GNUstep? Nope. "moc C++" OK I give you that. But its still a decent API to work with and a breeze to port. As in, you do nothing to port it. (been there, done that)
"That's not subjective either."
I saw no mention of wxWidgets or QT in there. Nice try.
" GNUstep runs on X11, Cairo, Win32/GDI, and it can also be recompiled on MacOSX." (But why would you want to? You have Cocoa? You are talking yourself in circles... )
x11? Check. Win32? Check. MacOSX? Check. Embedded? Check. Cairo? According to the KDE-Qt forums: http://dot.kde.org/1135084395/1135100106/11351852
Are people really that cheap that they will switch operating systems to save a quarter on a thumb drive?
$30 a month, cheaper than getting a landline with similar features through BellSouth... and cheaper than the local competitors for a similar plan. /shrug
There are other api's that are truly cross-platform (Windows, Linux, Mac, Embedded) and don't just "run on top of X http://www.gnustep.org/information/aboutGNUstep.ht ml (and no offense, they look prettier too)
-everphilski-
That is why he used the qualifier "almost the only one"
can you hear evil now? good!
(just kidding! I've actually had great service through Verizon the past 3 years)