Thank you! Other than patches, if you have to continually reboot a Windows server, it's more than likely the 3rd party app you're trying to run on the system opposed to Windows itself. That's not to say Windows doesn't have issues, but in my experience, if your system is going down continually outside of your predetermined downtimes, you (the sys admin) or the 3rd party vendor is doing something horribly wrong. In general of course;-)
Agreed. Our OS, logs, and data are all on seperate drives. If you try and combine them, you're crazy. Exchange is very disk I/O heavy, as should be expected.
I guess he'd just prefer to have his store.exe play swap games to disk;-)
Given our store.exe is using 672,868 K of RAM supporting almost 20 times the number of users you indicate, I'd venture a guess it's an sys admin problem yes.
But maybe that's just me.
I haven't. I've only been using Firefox (at work) for about 3 weeks and noticed all but one of those issues within at most an hour. I guess I assumed this would be pretty basic stuff they should already know about. Beyond that, I don't have much preference on the success or failure of Firefox as a project so it hasn't felt very pressing to file a report.
To be honest, I primarily use IE. It just really broke BAD after I tried IE7 beta;-) I've used Opera before though and I'd have to say it's probably my second choice in browser. I had just already put FF on my system and so have been using it.
If your require a dedicated machine for 30 users, to me, that says more about your inability to effectively design and administer an Exchange environment rather than something about Exchange itself. Our environment is relatively small (about 200 users). It runs like a champ on a single server. I think we could easily scale to a few thousand users without breaking a sweat.
If managing Exchange in such a simple environment as yours (or mine) is so frustrating, I'm sorry, but you're doing something wrong. The only time I have to touch Exchange is adding new users, removing users (which is actually just done on our DC), and on patch Tuesday. Exchange has a long way to go (particularly with ActiveSync and public folder syncronization), however it's really not a bad product and not nearly as incapable as you make it sound.
I haven't had the issues he has, but here are some of the ones I DO have:
- Copy/paste is flaky and very frustrating. Especially when trying to paste into other applications (seems to be better pasting to itself). Particularly when trying to copy/paste URLs in the address bar. It seems I have to click the address, then click again to get a blinking cursor. Then highlight the entire string, THEN I can successfully copy it.
- Sometimes it just kinda disappears. Meaning the taskbar icon. I've had it just disappear. The first time it happened I thought I must've inadvertantly closed the program. When Alt-Tabbing a little later I noticed I had three FF icons when I only thought I had two open (as indicated in the taskbar). I switched to the mystery one and lo and behold it was the window that disappeared. And the taskbar icon even came back. This has happened several times.
- I don't like how it behaves sometimes when launching from other applications. When launching a URL (I tell FF to not reuse windows) from another app, it ALWAYS restores or brings to the front one of the existing FF windows and then loads a new one. This is just annoying and sloppy, especially for someone that relies heavily on Alt-Tab to move between applications very quickly (it really screws up your mental view of what order your windows are in).
- More of just a UI preference, I really like the Ctrl-O that IE has for opening WHATEVER. It's stupid to have two commands to open files. It shouldn't matter if they're on your local system or online. One box to put in a URI!
I can understand why people wouldn't want to use IE and choose FF. I do think it's amusing how some people ignore (forgive?) some of the real shortcomings just because it's "not IE". I guess I can't talk too much. I tried loading IE7 beta on my machine and now IE won't load (the full UI anyway, any app that uses the IE controls works fine) so I'm stuck using FF. It's growing on me, but still has a long way to go before I'd consider using it as my main browser.
I love reading your posts, they're great. It matters little to me that OSX is based on OSS. Try buying a copy for any other hardware platform than a Mac. Can't, can you?
Your point about why Microsoft ports their software to Mac whereas Apple doesn't do the same only shows my point further. Apple isn't willing to play nice with (where this figure came from I'm not sure but we're using it in this thread apparently) 20% of the MP3 player market, while Microsoft even still releases their products for some of the 5%. I think his point was more that if we're talking about the evilness of companies, you should start with the companies that simply refuse to do anything for a larger portion of the market. Apple refusing to allow their OS to run on non-Apple hardware, ESPECIALLY when they'll be using the same architecture.
At any rate, I really don't care all that much because I don't particularly like either company all that much. I use Windows, I have an iPod. I hate things about both:-) I've also found it useless to criticize a company like Apple (and to a lesser degree MS) because the fanboys will scream bloody murder all night long.
I just really think it's too bad Apple won't allow their OS to run on my existing x86 hardware. I want to use it, like really really would like to, but if they don't want me to, I guess I'll keep with MS.
Just like people figure out a way around most of MS's attempts to keep things under lock and key. Just because you CAN use these other methods of managing your iPod doesn't mean Apple wanted you to. AFAIK anyway.
I think it's great how people are so trusting of all the non-MS companies to think that if they were in the same situation Microsoft is, they wouldn't do the exact same thing.
In fact, Apple's iPod (which I own) is just as bad in how they lock it down. Not to mention how much I love people defending Apple's decision to not allow their OS to run on non-Apple hardware. That's classic Microsoft, yet the same people bashing MS will defend Apple. I don't get it.
I'd guess most computer professionals' work is "not a tangible object". Apparently you are a student at Wright State University. After you graduate with your CS major, what exactly are you planning on doing? Selling hot dogs? Hopefully you don't plan on being a software engineer, systems admin, database admin, or well almost anything else that a typical CS major would be interested in.
Your critique of Apple's bread and butter couldn't be more wrong, but thanks for playing.
At least they didn't fall flat on their face like you seem to have done.
I can't or won't argue with some of your points, but I did want to make a few observations about a few of your (IMO) unfounded assertions.
You say a lot of students use Mac's? I'm not sure what University you belong to, but that's not the case from my observation at the University of Utah. I'd be surprised if even... maybe 1 in 100-150 students use Mac's as their system of choice. Stepping into any of the labs on campus (assuming they have a few Mac's) seems to support this as well from my observation. I'd be lucky to see 1 person use a Mac, if that. Movie stars... Probably. They have a lot of money to blow on things like that;-) Bankers? I don't think so. Most banking software is written to use Windows as the client; and not even "new" Windows, but like Windows 95/98. I've never seen a banking professional use a Mac, and at my wife's work (loss prevention for a bank), none of their uppper (well any level) management use Mac's. I have to disagree again with lawyers, although I'm not sure about the rest of your list. Except politicians. From my experience they're primarily Windows-based as well for the most part. I can't talk in absolutes, if you look hard enough I'm certain you'll find SOMEONE from each segment using a Mac.
I really hate when people make statements like "the Mac has continued to dramatically outpace PC market gain." Even though it could technically be true, it's misleading. Like someone already mentioned, when you already have such massive penetration as Windows does, it's not very easy to go higher. That doesn't mean that the underdog is taking the world by storm though...
I agree with your point 5 for the most part, good job;-) To be quite frank, I couldn't have summed my thoughts on Apple's decision any better than the title of this article. I was hugely disappointed in their decision. I think they have a good product, but I'm not going to switch if I have to use a Mac.
My only real opinion on why Apple doesn't want to enable OSX to run on a non-Mac is that they realize doing that would put them a lot closer to the difficult position Microsoft is in as far as hardware driver support, and writing something that can function reasonably well on a variety of hardware configurations, not just blessed configs from a single vendor.
I really don't think their extension are capable of qualifying as a patent, but stranger things have happened.
I could be reading things wrong, but as far as I can tell currently the "GPL and most other open source software" is capable of using these extensions. I can't really speculate as to if this will change in the future, but then again, it's somewhat irresponsible for you to do so as well.
Sarcastically blaming Microsoft about filing as many patent applications as they do is just complaining about the symptom, not the real issue. You can't really blame them for playing the game.
The comparison to SCO is a little off since SCO is currently doing the 'bad' thing. As I see it, right now, MS is doing the 'right' thing with simply your prediction that they'll do the 'bad' thing later. You could be right, but as I read it now, it looks fine.
I hate to also sidetrack into politics, but people that think the only reason for going into Iraq was due to WMD's, well I guess you would be let down. Not that I think Iraq was a smart idea, but it wasn't just about WMD's.
At any rate, I guess we'll see what happens. I won't hold my breath that MS will do the right thing, but I do think it's premature to criticize how they're handling these extensions.
And if you read how Microsoft is handling their extentions, frankly I don't see what the issue is. So someone thought of a way to make RSS potentially better, and they're sharing it with other people.
As I see it MS had two options:
1) Create their own proprietary standard and have everyone bitch at them or;
2) Use an existing standard, try and OPENLY build on it to do what they want, and only have retards like Slashdot minions bitch about it.
Sure it's flamebait but I'm sick of this crap. Also wilsone8, I'm not directing this to you, just all the others that don't care to educate themselves first.
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
Took a while (not surprisingly) for this to appear here. As far as being supportive of Apple doing this, I'd love to see the reaction of people if Microsoft decided to build their own PC's and pull this kind of stunt.
I don't think Microsoft is some god-send by any means, it just bugs me that they are held to such a higher standard for criticism than most other companies, especially when companies like Apple pull just as devious stunts.
If you're an IT admin and are actually vulnerable to most of the security holes in their OS's, I would have a hard time sleeping ANY weekend. Make users just that, USERS, and you remove several attack vector's and might, just might, be able to wait until Monday. Or Tuesday... Or sometime else down the road.
You do realize he was being sarcastic (or perhaps a little condescending) I hope?
Your correlation about supporting "two different code-bases" isn't very accurate. In each of those examples you have different companies/organizations interested in providing multiple solutions to a problem. A more accurate example would be saying that Microsoft should develop three different web browsers, or two different office suites.
Using your same examples again, what you do seem to think is rediculous is that Microsoft can't run the same MS Office binaries on other operating systems. How dare those other OS's not natively support Windows binaries! (Another example of sarcasm)
When compared accurately, it seems a bit rediculous doesn't it? I can't see why anyone could possibly criticize a company for something like this. If they don't want to invest millions to develop support for such and such processor, so what? Guess I should expect them to make a version of Windows that will work using my fancy microwave as the processor huh? I'll point out the sarcasm here yet again since it seems you had a problem detecting it in the earlier post.
Ummm, no. Well, there's no inherit reason it should or should not work really. I'm a bit confused by your post/point. www and download point to different hosts (not sure if you did an nslookup on those?). There are lots of possibilities, but the most simple would be that requests to download that don't contain the proper vars (like product, os, lang) get redirected to the main mozilla site). I mean, that not incredibly difficult to do and it would appear that just doing to download is the same as going to www.
Honestly I'm not sure if I'm preaching to the choir with you or not because your post was so confusing for me:-) Sorry!
It really just depends on what kind of loads the VS will be subject to. Once the VM Additions are installed they run a LOT better. That's one thing I'm really unsure of with the newly touted Linux support. If they don't have an equivilent, it could run HORRIBLY slow.
Even with the VM Additions though, we've noticed about 60-75% disk access (read/write) on the virtualized environments so anything that requires significant disk I/O is going to really REALLY suffer.
We use them primarily for our dev/demo/test environments and for secondary "production" work (get used only when the primary servers are being worked too hard).
VS SP1 is supposed to be coming out and they're saying an "overall" 30% performance gain. Heh, what it really means we'll have to wait and see:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Definately. The Apple/Linux zealots are the only reason I come to ./. You guys make me smile :-)
People should be just as concerned with monopolistic practices regardless of marketshare.
If HD-DVD was so real why didn't they pick it for XBox 360?
They might be trying to avoid losing an additional $4 billion on this next console.
Thank you! Other than patches, if you have to continually reboot a Windows server, it's more than likely the 3rd party app you're trying to run on the system opposed to Windows itself. That's not to say Windows doesn't have issues, but in my experience, if your system is going down continually outside of your predetermined downtimes, you (the sys admin) or the 3rd party vendor is doing something horribly wrong. In general of course ;-)
Agreed. Our OS, logs, and data are all on seperate drives. If you try and combine them, you're crazy. Exchange is very disk I/O heavy, as should be expected. I guess he'd just prefer to have his store.exe play swap games to disk ;-)
Given our store.exe is using 672,868 K of RAM supporting almost 20 times the number of users you indicate, I'd venture a guess it's an sys admin problem yes. But maybe that's just me.
I haven't. I've only been using Firefox (at work) for about 3 weeks and noticed all but one of those issues within at most an hour. I guess I assumed this would be pretty basic stuff they should already know about. Beyond that, I don't have much preference on the success or failure of Firefox as a project so it hasn't felt very pressing to file a report.
To be honest, I primarily use IE. It just really broke BAD after I tried IE7 beta ;-) I've used Opera before though and I'd have to say it's probably my second choice in browser. I had just already put FF on my system and so have been using it.
If your require a dedicated machine for 30 users, to me, that says more about your inability to effectively design and administer an Exchange environment rather than something about Exchange itself. Our environment is relatively small (about 200 users). It runs like a champ on a single server. I think we could easily scale to a few thousand users without breaking a sweat. If managing Exchange in such a simple environment as yours (or mine) is so frustrating, I'm sorry, but you're doing something wrong. The only time I have to touch Exchange is adding new users, removing users (which is actually just done on our DC), and on patch Tuesday. Exchange has a long way to go (particularly with ActiveSync and public folder syncronization), however it's really not a bad product and not nearly as incapable as you make it sound.
I haven't had the issues he has, but here are some of the ones I DO have:
- Copy/paste is flaky and very frustrating. Especially when trying to paste into other applications (seems to be better pasting to itself). Particularly when trying to copy/paste URLs in the address bar. It seems I have to click the address, then click again to get a blinking cursor. Then highlight the entire string, THEN I can successfully copy it.
- Sometimes it just kinda disappears. Meaning the taskbar icon. I've had it just disappear. The first time it happened I thought I must've inadvertantly closed the program. When Alt-Tabbing a little later I noticed I had three FF icons when I only thought I had two open (as indicated in the taskbar). I switched to the mystery one and lo and behold it was the window that disappeared. And the taskbar icon even came back. This has happened several times.
- I don't like how it behaves sometimes when launching from other applications. When launching a URL (I tell FF to not reuse windows) from another app, it ALWAYS restores or brings to the front one of the existing FF windows and then loads a new one. This is just annoying and sloppy, especially for someone that relies heavily on Alt-Tab to move between applications very quickly (it really screws up your mental view of what order your windows are in).
- More of just a UI preference, I really like the Ctrl-O that IE has for opening WHATEVER. It's stupid to have two commands to open files. It shouldn't matter if they're on your local system or online. One box to put in a URI!
I can understand why people wouldn't want to use IE and choose FF. I do think it's amusing how some people ignore (forgive?) some of the real shortcomings just because it's "not IE". I guess I can't talk too much. I tried loading IE7 beta on my machine and now IE won't load (the full UI anyway, any app that uses the IE controls works fine) so I'm stuck using FF. It's growing on me, but still has a long way to go before I'd consider using it as my main browser.
I love reading your posts, they're great. It matters little to me that OSX is based on OSS. Try buying a copy for any other hardware platform than a Mac. Can't, can you?
:-) I've also found it useless to criticize a company like Apple (and to a lesser degree MS) because the fanboys will scream bloody murder all night long.
Your point about why Microsoft ports their software to Mac whereas Apple doesn't do the same only shows my point further. Apple isn't willing to play nice with (where this figure came from I'm not sure but we're using it in this thread apparently) 20% of the MP3 player market, while Microsoft even still releases their products for some of the 5%. I think his point was more that if we're talking about the evilness of companies, you should start with the companies that simply refuse to do anything for a larger portion of the market. Apple refusing to allow their OS to run on non-Apple hardware, ESPECIALLY when they'll be using the same architecture.
At any rate, I really don't care all that much because I don't particularly like either company all that much. I use Windows, I have an iPod. I hate things about both
I just really think it's too bad Apple won't allow their OS to run on my existing x86 hardware. I want to use it, like really really would like to, but if they don't want me to, I guess I'll keep with MS.
Cheers!
Just like people figure out a way around most of MS's attempts to keep things under lock and key. Just because you CAN use these other methods of managing your iPod doesn't mean Apple wanted you to. AFAIK anyway.
I think it's great how people are so trusting of all the non-MS companies to think that if they were in the same situation Microsoft is, they wouldn't do the exact same thing.
In fact, Apple's iPod (which I own) is just as bad in how they lock it down. Not to mention how much I love people defending Apple's decision to not allow their OS to run on non-Apple hardware. That's classic Microsoft, yet the same people bashing MS will defend Apple. I don't get it.
Unless you happen to be Microsoft.
Exactly :-)
I'd guess most computer professionals' work is "not a tangible object". Apparently you are a student at Wright State University. After you graduate with your CS major, what exactly are you planning on doing? Selling hot dogs? Hopefully you don't plan on being a software engineer, systems admin, database admin, or well almost anything else that a typical CS major would be interested in.
Actually, yes I would.
I'm sorry, but you are retarded.
At least they didn't fall flat on their face like you seem to have done.
I can't or won't argue with some of your points, but I did want to make a few observations about a few of your (IMO) unfounded assertions.
You say a lot of students use Mac's? I'm not sure what University you belong to, but that's not the case from my observation at the University of Utah. I'd be surprised if even... maybe 1 in 100-150 students use Mac's as their system of choice. Stepping into any of the labs on campus (assuming they have a few Mac's) seems to support this as well from my observation. I'd be lucky to see 1 person use a Mac, if that. Movie stars... Probably. They have a lot of money to blow on things like that ;-) Bankers? I don't think so. Most banking software is written to use Windows as the client; and not even "new" Windows, but like Windows 95/98. I've never seen a banking professional use a Mac, and at my wife's work (loss prevention for a bank), none of their uppper (well any level) management use Mac's. I have to disagree again with lawyers, although I'm not sure about the rest of your list. Except politicians. From my experience they're primarily Windows-based as well for the most part. I can't talk in absolutes, if you look hard enough I'm certain you'll find SOMEONE from each segment using a Mac.
I really hate when people make statements like "the Mac has continued to dramatically outpace PC market gain." Even though it could technically be true, it's misleading. Like someone already mentioned, when you already have such massive penetration as Windows does, it's not very easy to go higher. That doesn't mean that the underdog is taking the world by storm though...
I agree with your point 5 for the most part, good job ;-) To be quite frank, I couldn't have summed my thoughts on Apple's decision any better than the title of this article. I was hugely disappointed in their decision. I think they have a good product, but I'm not going to switch if I have to use a Mac.
My only real opinion on why Apple doesn't want to enable OSX to run on a non-Mac is that they realize doing that would put them a lot closer to the difficult position Microsoft is in as far as hardware driver support, and writing something that can function reasonably well on a variety of hardware configurations, not just blessed configs from a single vendor.
I really don't think their extension are capable of qualifying as a patent, but stranger things have happened.
I could be reading things wrong, but as far as I can tell currently the "GPL and most other open source software" is capable of using these extensions. I can't really speculate as to if this will change in the future, but then again, it's somewhat irresponsible for you to do so as well.
Sarcastically blaming Microsoft about filing as many patent applications as they do is just complaining about the symptom, not the real issue. You can't really blame them for playing the game.
The comparison to SCO is a little off since SCO is currently doing the 'bad' thing. As I see it, right now, MS is doing the 'right' thing with simply your prediction that they'll do the 'bad' thing later. You could be right, but as I read it now, it looks fine.
I hate to also sidetrack into politics, but people that think the only reason for going into Iraq was due to WMD's, well I guess you would be let down. Not that I think Iraq was a smart idea, but it wasn't just about WMD's.
At any rate, I guess we'll see what happens. I won't hold my breath that MS will do the right thing, but I do think it's premature to criticize how they're handling these extensions.
And if you read how Microsoft is handling their extentions, frankly I don't see what the issue is. So someone thought of a way to make RSS potentially better, and they're sharing it with other people.
As I see it MS had two options:
1) Create their own proprietary standard and have everyone bitch at them or;
2) Use an existing standard, try and OPENLY build on it to do what they want, and only have retards like Slashdot minions bitch about it.
Sure it's flamebait but I'm sick of this crap. Also wilsone8, I'm not directing this to you, just all the others that don't care to educate themselves first.
Taken from: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?ta g=nl.e589
Took a while (not surprisingly) for this to appear here. As far as being supportive of Apple doing this, I'd love to see the reaction of people if Microsoft decided to build their own PC's and pull this kind of stunt.
I don't think Microsoft is some god-send by any means, it just bugs me that they are held to such a higher standard for criticism than most other companies, especially when companies like Apple pull just as devious stunts.
If you're an IT admin and are actually vulnerable to most of the security holes in their OS's, I would have a hard time sleeping ANY weekend. Make users just that, USERS, and you remove several attack vector's and might, just might, be able to wait until Monday. Or Tuesday... Or sometime else down the road.
"the Itanium isn't that unknown."
You do realize he was being sarcastic (or perhaps a little condescending) I hope?
Your correlation about supporting "two different code-bases" isn't very accurate. In each of those examples you have different companies/organizations interested in providing multiple solutions to a problem. A more accurate example would be saying that Microsoft should develop three different web browsers, or two different office suites.
Using your same examples again, what you do seem to think is rediculous is that Microsoft can't run the same MS Office binaries on other operating systems. How dare those other OS's not natively support Windows binaries! (Another example of sarcasm)
When compared accurately, it seems a bit rediculous doesn't it? I can't see why anyone could possibly criticize a company for something like this. If they don't want to invest millions to develop support for such and such processor, so what? Guess I should expect them to make a version of Windows that will work using my fancy microwave as the processor huh? I'll point out the sarcasm here yet again since it seems you had a problem detecting it in the earlier post.
Ummm, no. Well, there's no inherit reason it should or should not work really. I'm a bit confused by your post/point. www and download point to different hosts (not sure if you did an nslookup on those?). There are lots of possibilities, but the most simple would be that requests to download that don't contain the proper vars (like product, os, lang) get redirected to the main mozilla site). I mean, that not incredibly difficult to do and it would appear that just doing to download is the same as going to www.
Honestly I'm not sure if I'm preaching to the choir with you or not because your post was so confusing for me :-) Sorry!
It really just depends on what kind of loads the VS will be subject to. Once the VM Additions are installed they run a LOT better. That's one thing I'm really unsure of with the newly touted Linux support. If they don't have an equivilent, it could run HORRIBLY slow. Even with the VM Additions though, we've noticed about 60-75% disk access (read/write) on the virtualized environments so anything that requires significant disk I/O is going to really REALLY suffer. We use them primarily for our dev/demo/test environments and for secondary "production" work (get used only when the primary servers are being worked too hard). VS SP1 is supposed to be coming out and they're saying an "overall" 30% performance gain. Heh, what it really means we'll have to wait and see :-)