The ability for OS/2 to run Windows 16 and 32bit code was because IBM did a great job at the DOS virtual machine. It really was Windows 3.x running in OS/2. IBM even had Windows 95( aka Chicago ) running on OS/2 until Microsoft found out and then made Win32 apps load a tiny bit of data at and address space outside the reach of OS/2. I think OS/2 processes had 512MB of virtual address space while a Win32 app had 1.5GB or something like that. So OS/2 ended up only able to run Win32S applications and not Win32C or Win32NT apps.
It was pretty cool running all those different systems on one OS though. At one point, I ran Win16/32s apps with OS/2 apps, XFree86 apps, and JAVA apps. Even wrote X11 apps for HP-UX systems on OS/2 and NFS before recompiling on the HP-UX system in the lab for final testing. It was sweet and the WorkplaceOS was supposed to take that concept to the OS level. Kinda like VM-Ware but with host OS and client OS integration.
But all this is and was a theat to the "One Microsoft Way" kind of thinking. To Microsoft, competition is BAD. Very bad. That's why their way of competing is to do anything to prevent the competition in the first place. See DOJ vs MSFT court docs for a small set of examples of this.
Microsoft only like the BSD and CDDL when it's somebody elses code being used. I think there are two examples of MSFT open source code but one is an installation tool, IIRC, and the other is a 'forms' framework. Hardly cutting edge and both have no chance of helping out any non-Windows projects.
Do you really think Microsoft would want competition from it's own code? And it doesn't matter how old it is. If it'll help the competition, they'll say no.
To that, I say release the non-Microsoft code and provide the API's and docs for the Microsoft parts. That is, unless IBM let Microsoft dictate the contract/license in the breakup. I've heard that even Serenity Systems( eCS ) has had a very difficult time getting access to OS/2 sources with or without NDA's.
This has come up over and over again and IIRC, it's always come back with IBM saying that they can't open source OS/2 because there's too much licensed code in it, and the license holders will not allow releasing the code. Of course, I've also heard that Microsoft is one of the major holdouts.
Wouldn't it be nice to have the WorkplaceShell on GNU/Linux someday? Or even get something like OpenDoc going again. Being stuck with rectangular windows just seems so 1980's. The browser and *nix has shown that small efficient "parts" make a far better, stable, and secure platform.
And with open source, it doesn't matter how large a company you are. Not EVERYBODY cares if you scream. Meaning, Apple, Wordperfect, Microsoft, etc, can't kill innovative technologies if they feel threatened by it.
Won't make it stop? It'll come pretty darn close. After all, the attack locations would go from thousands, down to one. And YOU would be in control of security YOUR data. Last time I checked, we still had a right to defend outselves. Or did the Patriot Act take that right away too...
Bingo! until it means $$$ to these people, they'll losing personal data and then say they are sorry.
I know that no system is 100% secure but I'd still like to know what kind of system this stuff is getting stolen from. Fingers need to be pointed and someone has to start paying for this. Not just the consumer. The same consumer who'll have his/her lifetime to wonder what next is going to happen to them once their "number"(ie ID info ) has been released into the wild.
Well stated. Unfortunately, we're going to need new laws now that it's somehow so much easier to hack into systems. Enacting laws which force data collectors to encrypt data or be fined. When the data is lost, fine them 10X if the data was found to not be encrypted.
I have to ask one question: Why is it so common for data systems to get hacked? Corporate and Campus data has been stored on computer systems for years and years without much of any problems holding on to it. Now, it seems like they've all decided to put this data on a laptop with a SECRET sticker on it and left it sitting in the middle of a seedy bar.
Close to 20 years ago, corporate access to the internet was not as common as it is today but it was available to many larger corporations. Most large educational institutions were networked.... What's changed? Are admins dumber today than yesterday?
Will Microsoft support OS/2 on the VirtualPC platform? Microsoft purchased VirualPC just when VirtualPC for eCS( OS/2 ) was released.
Maybe, like BASIC, Bill keeps insisting Microsoft keep its hands on those "special" projects. Heck, he's probably still got.... I was going to mention MS-Bob code hidden in Windows but then I rememberd that stupid paperclip character... See how Bill works?
Anyways, I think the VirualPC purchase was all about letting one PC run more than one server process when running on Windows. This Linux stuff is a side effect of some existing customers making noises about previously supported stuff which Microsoft stopped supporting. Heck, the DOJ might even have stepped in since its obvious VirtualPC was more about running/enabling NON-Microsoft operating systems.
The HOST Windows system will be the only one with a "bigger" uptime than the Linux-in-VM session(s). Though I still doubt that'll be very impressive, but to answer your question...
All the Windows-in-VM sessions will be bouncing around like the lottery ping-pong balls while the Linux-in-VM session(s) get forced bounces by the new Microsoft updates to the VM software.
Maybe that's why they need so much time to support Linux. They need the time to figure out how to spread the 'bounce Linux' code across all the DLL's in the system.;-)
> >They have a bit of a hard road to climb it they want to compete with VMWare, but Microsoft certainly has the muscle to do so. >
Yes, but I don't think they have the heart to actually follow through. They might release something, but if it works, they'll release updates that break it by mistake. Or they'll put NOOPs in to slow it down. Or they'll do SOMETHING to make sure it does NOT run as well as it should. That is what I expect from knowing the history of how Microsoft "supports" things outside of it's Windows products. Their hearts have a Windows logo tattooed onto it.
ah, the good old days when management came to the techies to ask what technology was the best for the job....
It was right about the time that MS Visual Basic came around that every shoe salesman turned manager started coming up with screen shots of "applications" they've written and that we should be able to put a product together in a few weeks based on that... It wasn't THAT bad but it did happen a couple of times and that was a couple of times too often.
The reason Microsoft NEEDS virtualization software is because their OS can't do it. Most shops end up with atleast 2 systems running the same server software for fail-over. And MS servers fall over way too often. And because of this, many shops only run one or two services per server so that when one goes down, it doesn't take out the other. So, in the brilliant move to Microsoft servers, shops have ended up with something like the tribbles on "Star Trek". The server rooms are full of machines that are pretty much under utilized because the OS can't handle the load.
In comes the virtualization software. Now, one PC can run 2+ copies of Windows Server with each one running one service. The PC now gets more fully utilized running Microsoft. The fact that same PC running GNU/Linux or UNIX can run 10+ services without breaking isn't that big of a deal.
Oh, and BTW, that product HAD GNU/Linux support when they purchased it. When Microsoft released their first version of it, they said it would still run GNU/Linux now but that they wouldn't support it. Now, they say that they'll "ADD" support for GNU/Linux at the end of the year because customers want this..... Why does it take a company the size of Microsoft, with Microsofts money, 8 months to support something they said is already supported? I'll tell you, THEY DO NOT REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT GNU/LINUX. They'll drag this out until anybody who actually is expecting GNU/Linux support finally finds something else or they all get calls from Microsoft with sweet deals of free Microsoft software for a year on a 5+ year contract.
That's my take on this and I do not believe this company has changed. It's the same marketing they've always had and new victims who'll believe them. IMHO.
when you get the size of Microsoft and do it they way they did, you tell your customers to take it or leave it. That was how it has been done at Microsoft for over 15 years. Now, with all the open source tools their customers can pick from, they've had to lighten their tone some. But, make no mistake, their attitude has hardly changed. "Get the Facts", the EU, Burst, Orange( or whatever that cell phone company was )... Just a few examples of business as usual at Microsoft.
So, there is no change at Microsoft, you have just been made to THINK there is. They are after all, a great marketing company.
Just remember how Microsoft SUPPORTS a competing product. Remember JAVA? And there was also the JDBC driver for MSSQL, that took them 1.5 years to release after announcing that they would support JDBC.
In other words, what comes out of their mouths, is not what really happens. Or the results are not any where near what people EXPECTed. They have their own language and it's a dialect of marketing-speak. IMO.
Good point. It wouldn't be just a matter of popping in a new CPU. The support chip vendors would also have to be brought in and it's not likely that all current Dell chip vendors also product AMD compatible chips.
But keep this quite, we don't want Intel to know this. Otherwise, these annual stories of Dell using/not-using AMD CPUs would stop.;-/
if that were the case, why do these articles keep getting run? It would be great if Dell could/would just switch 100% to AMD but that's no the world we live in. If Dell thought that bringing in AMD would produce the demand for the AMD kits which would bury AMDs production capacity, I think Dell would be on AMDs case to increase capacity ASAP. Since these articles have been going on for over 5 years, I doubt this is really the case.
Here is an idea/concept: 1) Intel already provides Dell with chips people will purchase and when AMD pushes the technology, Dell pushes Intel to get something comparible on the market. OR, Dell says it'll go to AMD 2) Intel already provide Dell with marketing $$$ for a) being 100% Intel and b) putting a logo on the box and in advertising. AMD can't match those free marketing $$$ from Intel. 3) Dell knows that Intel does not want to lose the LAST big PC manufacturer to be 100% Intel. A yearly threat of bringing AMD keeps Intels marketing $$$'s high and part costs low. 3a) There's a bit of a psychological hammer Dell has over Intel too. John Q Public's preception of Intel would be greatly harmed if NONE of the BIG PC makers felt Intel was "THE" CPU to use.
IMHO. I must say that this game Dell keeps playing is getting really old.
But are they paying the press to keep running these stupid articles too? It's as bad as those articles about the lastest thing Microsoft is "betting the company" on. Oh, and those things about Linux not being a threat... It's just noise IMO.
Come on, the parent should surely be mod'ed as FUNNY. Saying that Microsoft and Intel provides Dell with the latest technology is hilarious.
Intel DID once have the ability to do this but not any more. That phase of Intels history began when they released the 32bit optimized PentiumPro. Intel had to backpedal now because they soon found out that Microsofts latest OS( Chicago, aka Windows 95 ) had so much 16bit code in it that it ran slower on the PentiumPro than it did on the older classic Pentium CPUs. NextGen was then able to come out with it's RISC based processor and outperform Intel on x86. AMD purchased NextGen and the rest is history( race to 1GHz anyone;-)
The parent thread owner did get something right. It's all about marketing dollars folks. Dell gets over 20% of it's PROFITS directly from Microsoft marketing kick-backs. I'm sure Intel also provides a pretty good kick-back for putting up that Intel logo and I'd venture to go on a limb and say that a bunch of that would go away if another brand was brought in. Dell can not exist without Microsoft and Intel paying for them those marketing dollars.
Ok folks, I can see how it would be "interesting" to the press to write about what IS being used and picked up by the industry, but writing articles about what IS NOT being picked up? I wonder why they would feel the need to do that? Not.
There is obviously a motive behind this tactic and the motive is hidden from view for obvious reasons. Whenever there is a shift from one product for another, all those tightly involved in the losing market are going to do anything they can to slow down, stall or even stop the migration. Atleast until they too can figure out a way to shift over to that new market and pull profits from it. Think about the oil industry and hydrogen/fuelcells. All of Detroit held up the gas/electric hybrid flag until Bush took office and directed them to hold up the hydrogen/fuelcell flag. A shift threatened the profits of one industry, oil, and many players involved moved attention away from the immediate solution in order to slow down growth while they figured out how to play catch-up. In this example, there has been a number of articles falsely stating data.
So, why would eWeek/PCWeek/ZiffDavis post an article about companies who have decided NOT to use GNU/Linux?
I recall seeing them post a few articles about how much money was being made on sales of Microsoft software compared to GNU/Linux. The funny thing is, THAT kind of article was showing businesses how much they were sending to Microsoft or its partners, instead of NOT spending the money on GNU/Linux. Microsoft has shifted its marketing from competing on price with GNU/Linux and is now focusing on TCO. Just like this eWeek article....
When did taxes become a natural law? I thought that taxes were derived from the people of the area where the taxes were used for the purpose of SERVING those paying the tax. It gets kind messy when talking about the Federal Government but it's pretty easy with regards to the States. Especially when one does not reside in the state.
This sounds like a criminal case and should be brought to the attention of the local police and the press. If that also does nothing, then a civil case should be brought against ALL parties.
If the TSA and airlines are going to make a joke of this, a cream pie in their face is in order. Especially when you have such proof.
I've heard of thefts by baggage inspectors but THIS is too much. IMO.
It seems that all these "security" policies are about the "perception" of security and not about actual security. Geesh, they were even collecting fingernail clippers from people visiting the Statue of Liberty....
Even with all the holes in the original CAPPS system, WHAT were they actually looking for? After all, it flagged most of the hijackers. Then NOTHING resulted from that with regard to actually securing the aircraft. The easily opened cockpit doors also begged to question of how intelligent our security "experts" really are. I've only flown first class a few times but I remember my first time. When they closed the cockpit door and blocked my view of the instruments, I thought how silly it was since that door was so flimsy. This was the early 90's... People already knew about crashing airplanes to impart more damage beyond that of the aircraft and it's occupants.
All and all, when you look at they foibles of our security systems before Sept 11, 2001, you actually see a system which surprisingly flagged most of the hijackers AND exposed their plan. What else you see is how badly that information was handled. Somehow, this was taken to mean that massive changes in the management of all the existing security departments was required.... It's like a bad wheel bearing is causing vibrations in the car and the owner of the service station tells you to replace the car.
Bin Laden may have started the ball rolling, but WE are doing a great job at really messing up this country. What next, putting the 10 Commandments in front of every government building to help improve security?
Our annual electric bill is typically around $150 for the year. That's around the amount we're short of a 13yr payoff. So any improvements can get close to the golden number.
w/176 of interest,.3 tax bracket, that's (53) writeoff.
so the number is more like 139/yr short of at current 4MWh/hr generation. That's 926KWh at CURRENT RATES.
I can probably get another 5KWh/day in the winter months by clearing a sun blocking tree. so, 5*90=450KWh of added generation or about half of the deficit. So, with some tree trimming, we're looking at 70/year deficit of a 8000 loan over 13 years. AT CURRENT RATES.
I don't know about you, but we feel that it is far more likely that energy rates go UP and not DOWN over the next 13 years.
I will agree, there is SOME value in not using somebody elses oil. It's also the reason we paid the 2k-3k premium for our 47MPG( AVG ) hybrid Prius. That and the fact that it makes a great backup power source.
The numbers really are NOT as bad as you make them seem. Not a money making venture either but then again, we can only rape the earth for so long before it fights back. Or some of its occupants do it....
I should have mentioned that with the CA rebates and CA State tax deduction the system cost us about $8000 installed( grid tied ).
The system is ~2KW system( ~3KW spec'ed ) and we paid for the system via a home equity loan( more write offs ).
We're generating about 4000KWh per year at todays ~$.15/Kwh which is $600. If rates say steady, it'll take 13 years to pay off the system. We don't expect energy rates to stay steady.
Sherly, if we didn't have the CA Solar Energy rebate, onetime tax deduction, and the southern California sun, it'd take much longer to pay off.
I'm working on an Islanding mechanism that'll double as a home automation control system UPS so that rolling blackouts( during daylight hours ) won't shut our system down.
so it's really not as bad as you think. And if anybody is able to get over 25% efficiency out of solar panels at current panel costs, it'll be threshold crossing time IMO. Hey, hydrogen might even have a future then.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The ability for OS/2 to run Windows 16 and 32bit code was because IBM did a great job at the DOS virtual machine. It really was Windows 3.x running in OS/2. IBM even had Windows 95( aka Chicago ) running on OS/2 until Microsoft found out and then made Win32 apps load a tiny bit of data at and address space outside the reach of OS/2. I think OS/2 processes had 512MB of virtual address space while a Win32 app had 1.5GB or something like that. So OS/2 ended up only able to run Win32S applications and not Win32C or Win32NT apps.
It was pretty cool running all those different systems on one OS though. At one point, I ran Win16/32s apps with OS/2 apps, XFree86 apps, and JAVA apps. Even wrote X11 apps for HP-UX systems on OS/2 and NFS before recompiling on the HP-UX system in the lab for final testing. It was sweet and the WorkplaceOS was supposed to take that concept to the OS level. Kinda like VM-Ware but with host OS and client OS integration.
But all this is and was a theat to the "One Microsoft Way" kind of thinking. To Microsoft, competition is BAD. Very bad. That's why their way of competing is to do anything to prevent the competition in the first place. See DOJ vs MSFT court docs for a small set of examples of this.
LoB
Microsoft only like the BSD and CDDL when it's somebody elses code being used. I think there are two examples of MSFT open source code but one is an installation tool, IIRC, and the other is a 'forms' framework. Hardly cutting edge and both have no chance of helping out any non-Windows projects.
Do you really think Microsoft would want competition from it's own code? And it doesn't matter how old it is. If it'll help the competition, they'll say no.
To that, I say release the non-Microsoft code and provide the API's and docs for the Microsoft parts. That is, unless IBM let Microsoft dictate the contract/license in the breakup. I've heard that even Serenity Systems( eCS ) has had a very difficult time getting access to OS/2 sources with or without NDA's.
LoB
This has come up over and over again and IIRC, it's always come back with IBM saying that they can't open source OS/2 because there's too much licensed code in it, and the license holders will not allow releasing the code. Of course, I've also heard that Microsoft is one of the major holdouts.
Wouldn't it be nice to have the WorkplaceShell on GNU/Linux someday? Or even get something like OpenDoc going again. Being stuck with rectangular windows just seems so 1980's. The browser and *nix has shown that small efficient "parts" make a far better, stable, and secure platform.
And with open source, it doesn't matter how large a company you are. Not EVERYBODY cares if you scream. Meaning, Apple, Wordperfect, Microsoft, etc, can't kill innovative technologies if they feel threatened by it.
LoB
it looks like it's very unlikely that the SSA is going to go handing out new SSN's for the average ID theft situation....
There needs to be a way to purge all holders of your SSN BEFORE someone "bad" gets ahold of it.
LoB
Won't make it stop? It'll come pretty darn close. After all, the attack locations would go from thousands, down to one. And YOU would be in control of security YOUR data. Last time I checked, we still had a right to defend outselves. Or did the Patriot Act take that right away too...
LoB
Bingo! until it means $$$ to these people, they'll losing personal data and then say they are sorry.
I know that no system is 100% secure but I'd still like to know what kind of system this stuff is getting stolen from. Fingers need to be pointed and someone has to start paying for this. Not just the consumer. The same consumer who'll have his/her lifetime to wonder what next is going to happen to them once their "number"(ie ID info ) has been released into the wild.
LoB
Well stated. Unfortunately, we're going to need new laws now that it's somehow so much easier to hack into systems. Enacting laws which force data collectors to encrypt data or be fined. When the data is lost, fine them 10X if the data was found to not be encrypted.
I have to ask one question: Why is it so common for data systems to get hacked? Corporate and Campus data has been stored on computer systems for years and years without much of any problems holding on to it. Now, it seems like they've all decided to put this data on a laptop with a SECRET sticker on it and left it sitting in the middle of a seedy bar.
Close to 20 years ago, corporate access to the internet was not as common as it is today but it was available to many larger corporations. Most large educational institutions were networked.... What's changed? Are admins dumber today than yesterday?
LoB
Will Microsoft support OS/2 on the VirtualPC platform? Microsoft purchased VirualPC just when VirtualPC for eCS( OS/2 ) was released.
Maybe, like BASIC, Bill keeps insisting Microsoft keep its hands on those "special" projects. Heck, he's probably still got.... I was going to mention MS-Bob code hidden in Windows but then I rememberd that stupid paperclip character... See how Bill works?
Anyways, I think the VirualPC purchase was all about letting one PC run more than one server process when running on Windows. This Linux stuff is a side effect of some existing customers making noises about previously supported stuff which Microsoft stopped supporting. Heck, the DOJ might even have stepped in since its obvious VirtualPC was more about running/enabling NON-Microsoft operating systems.
LoB
That's easy:
;-)
The HOST Windows system will be the only one with a "bigger" uptime than the Linux-in-VM session(s). Though I still doubt that'll be very impressive, but to answer your question...
All the Windows-in-VM sessions will be bouncing around like the lottery ping-pong balls while the Linux-in-VM session(s) get forced bounces by the new Microsoft updates to the VM software.
Maybe that's why they need so much time to support Linux. They need the time to figure out how to spread the 'bounce Linux' code across all the DLL's in the system.
LoB
>
>They have a bit of a hard road to climb it they want to compete with VMWare, but Microsoft certainly has the muscle to do so.
>
Yes, but I don't think they have the heart to actually follow through. They might release something, but if it works, they'll release updates that break it by mistake. Or they'll put NOOPs in to slow it down. Or they'll do SOMETHING to make sure it does NOT run as well as it should. That is what I expect from knowing the history of how Microsoft "supports" things outside of it's Windows products. Their hearts have a Windows logo tattooed onto it.
LoB
ah, the good old days when management came to the techies to ask what technology was the best for the job....
It was right about the time that MS Visual Basic came around that every shoe salesman turned manager started coming up with screen shots of "applications" they've written and that we should be able to put a product together in a few weeks based on that... It wasn't THAT bad but it did happen a couple of times and that was a couple of times too often.
The 80's were a good time to be in tech. IMO.
LoB
The reason Microsoft NEEDS virtualization software is because their OS can't do it. Most shops end up with atleast 2 systems running the same server software for fail-over. And MS servers fall over way too often. And because of this, many shops only run one or two services per server so that when one goes down, it doesn't take out the other. So, in the brilliant move to Microsoft servers, shops have ended up with something like the tribbles on "Star Trek". The server rooms are full of machines that are pretty much under utilized because the OS can't handle the load.
In comes the virtualization software. Now, one PC can run 2+ copies of Windows Server with each one running one service. The PC now gets more fully utilized running Microsoft. The fact that same PC running GNU/Linux or UNIX can run 10+ services without breaking isn't that big of a deal.
Oh, and BTW, that product HAD GNU/Linux support when they purchased it. When Microsoft released their first version of it, they said it would still run GNU/Linux now but that they wouldn't support it. Now, they say that they'll "ADD" support for GNU/Linux at the end of the year because customers want this..... Why does it take a company the size of Microsoft, with Microsofts money, 8 months to support something they said is already supported? I'll tell you, THEY DO NOT REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT GNU/LINUX. They'll drag this out until anybody who actually is expecting GNU/Linux support finally finds something else or they all get calls from Microsoft with sweet deals of free Microsoft software for a year on a 5+ year contract.
That's my take on this and I do not believe this company has changed. It's the same marketing they've always had and new victims who'll believe them. IMHO.
LoB
when you get the size of Microsoft and do it they way they did, you tell your customers to take it or leave it. That was how it has been done at Microsoft for over 15 years. Now, with all the open source tools their customers can pick from, they've had to lighten their tone some. But, make no mistake, their attitude has hardly changed. "Get the Facts", the EU, Burst, Orange( or whatever that cell phone company was )... Just a few examples of business as usual at Microsoft.
So, there is no change at Microsoft, you have just been made to THINK there is. They are after all, a great marketing company.
LoB
Just remember how Microsoft SUPPORTS a competing product. Remember JAVA? And there was also the JDBC driver for MSSQL, that took them 1.5 years to release after announcing that they would support JDBC.
In other words, what comes out of their mouths, is not what really happens. Or the results are not any where near what people EXPECTed. They have their own language and it's a dialect of marketing-speak. IMO.
Still at GhandiCon 3 IMHO.
LoB
Good point. It wouldn't be just a matter of popping in a new CPU. The support chip vendors would also have to be brought in and it's not likely that all current Dell chip vendors also product AMD compatible chips.
;-/
But keep this quite, we don't want Intel to know this. Otherwise, these annual stories of Dell using/not-using AMD CPUs would stop.
LoB
if that were the case, why do these articles keep getting run? It would be great if Dell could/would just switch 100% to AMD but that's no the world we live in. If Dell thought that bringing in AMD would produce the demand for the AMD kits which would bury AMDs production capacity, I think Dell would be on AMDs case to increase capacity ASAP. Since these articles have been going on for over 5 years, I doubt this is really the case.
Here is an idea/concept:
1) Intel already provides Dell with chips people will purchase and when AMD pushes the technology, Dell pushes Intel to get something comparible on the market. OR, Dell says it'll go to AMD
2) Intel already provide Dell with marketing $$$ for a) being 100% Intel and b) putting a logo on the box and in advertising. AMD can't match those free marketing $$$ from Intel.
3) Dell knows that Intel does not want to lose the LAST big PC manufacturer to be 100% Intel. A yearly threat of bringing AMD keeps Intels marketing $$$'s high and part costs low.
3a) There's a bit of a psychological hammer Dell has over Intel too. John Q Public's preception of Intel would be greatly harmed if NONE of the BIG PC makers felt Intel was "THE" CPU to use.
IMHO. I must say that this game Dell keeps playing is getting really old.
LoB
But are they paying the press to keep running these stupid articles too? It's as bad as those articles about the lastest thing Microsoft is "betting the company" on. Oh, and those things about Linux not being a threat... It's just noise IMO.
LoB
Come on, the parent should surely be mod'ed as FUNNY. Saying that Microsoft and Intel provides Dell with the latest technology is hilarious.
;-)
Intel DID once have the ability to do this but not any more. That phase of Intels history began when they released the 32bit optimized PentiumPro. Intel had to backpedal now because they soon found out that Microsofts latest OS( Chicago, aka Windows 95 ) had so much 16bit code in it that it ran slower on the PentiumPro than it did on the older classic Pentium CPUs. NextGen was then able to come out with it's RISC based processor and outperform Intel on x86. AMD purchased NextGen and the rest is history( race to 1GHz anyone
The parent thread owner did get something right. It's all about marketing dollars folks. Dell gets over 20% of it's PROFITS directly from Microsoft marketing kick-backs. I'm sure Intel also provides a pretty good kick-back for putting up that Intel logo and I'd venture to go on a limb and say that a bunch of that would go away if another brand was brought in. Dell can not exist without Microsoft and Intel paying for them those marketing dollars.
IMHO,
LoB
Ok folks, I can see how it would be "interesting" to the press to write about what IS being used and picked up by the industry, but writing articles about what IS NOT being picked up? I wonder why they would feel the need to do that? Not.
There is obviously a motive behind this tactic and the motive is hidden from view for obvious reasons. Whenever there is a shift from one product for another, all those tightly involved in the losing market are going to do anything they can to slow down, stall or even stop the migration. Atleast until they too can figure out a way to shift over to that new market and pull profits from it. Think about the oil industry and hydrogen/fuelcells. All of Detroit held up the gas/electric hybrid flag until Bush took office and directed them to hold up the hydrogen/fuelcell flag. A shift threatened the profits of one industry, oil, and many players involved moved attention away from the immediate solution in order to slow down growth while they figured out how to play catch-up. In this example, there has been a number of articles falsely stating data.
So, why would eWeek/PCWeek/ZiffDavis post an article about companies who have decided NOT to use GNU/Linux?
I recall seeing them post a few articles about how much money was being made on sales of Microsoft software compared to GNU/Linux. The funny thing is, THAT kind of article was showing businesses how much they were sending to Microsoft or its partners, instead of NOT spending the money on GNU/Linux. Microsoft has shifted its marketing from competing on price with GNU/Linux and is now focusing on TCO. Just like this eWeek article....
LoB
When did taxes become a natural law? I thought that taxes were derived from the people of the area where the taxes were used for the purpose of SERVING those paying the tax. It gets kind messy when talking about the Federal Government but it's pretty easy with regards to the States. Especially when one does not reside in the state.
This is just plain wrong. IMO.
LoB
This sounds like a criminal case and should be brought to the attention of the local police and the press. If that also does nothing, then a civil case should be brought against ALL parties.
If the TSA and airlines are going to make a joke of this, a cream pie in their face is in order. Especially when you have such proof.
I've heard of thefts by baggage inspectors but THIS is too much. IMO.
LoB
It seems that all these "security" policies are about the "perception" of security and not about actual security. Geesh, they were even collecting fingernail clippers from people visiting the Statue of Liberty....
Even with all the holes in the original CAPPS system, WHAT were they actually looking for? After all, it flagged most of the hijackers. Then NOTHING resulted from that with regard to actually securing the aircraft. The easily opened cockpit doors also begged to question of how intelligent our security "experts" really are. I've only flown first class a few times but I remember my first time. When they closed the cockpit door and blocked my view of the instruments, I thought how silly it was since that door was so flimsy. This was the early 90's... People already knew about crashing airplanes to impart more damage beyond that of the aircraft and it's occupants.
All and all, when you look at they foibles of our security systems before Sept 11, 2001, you actually see a system which surprisingly flagged most of the hijackers AND exposed their plan. What else you see is how badly that information was handled. Somehow, this was taken to mean that massive changes in the management of all the existing security departments was required.... It's like a bad wheel bearing is causing vibrations in the car and the owner of the service station tells you to replace the car.
Bin Laden may have started the ball rolling, but WE are doing a great job at really messing up this country. What next, putting the 10 Commandments in front of every government building to help improve security?
LoB
Our annual electric bill is typically around $150 for the year. That's around the amount we're short of a 13yr payoff. So any improvements can get close to the golden number.
LoB
high .14, rounded to .15
.04 is 792/yr
.3 tax bracket, that's (53) writeoff.
8000 over 13yr at
w/176 of interest,
so the number is more like 139/yr short of at current 4MWh/hr generation. That's 926KWh at CURRENT RATES.
I can probably get another 5KWh/day in the winter months by clearing a sun blocking tree. so, 5*90=450KWh of added generation or about half of the deficit. So, with some tree trimming, we're looking at 70/year deficit of a 8000 loan over 13 years. AT CURRENT RATES.
I don't know about you, but we feel that it is far more likely that energy rates go UP and not DOWN over the next 13 years.
I will agree, there is SOME value in not using somebody elses oil. It's also the reason we paid the 2k-3k premium for our 47MPG( AVG ) hybrid Prius. That and the fact that it makes a great backup power source.
The numbers really are NOT as bad as you make them seem. Not a money making venture either but then again, we can only rape the earth for so long before it fights back. Or some of its occupants do it....
LoB
I should have mentioned that with the CA rebates and CA State tax deduction the system cost us about $8000 installed( grid tied ).
;-)
The system is ~2KW system( ~3KW spec'ed ) and we paid for the system via a home equity loan( more write offs ).
We're generating about 4000KWh per year at todays ~$.15/Kwh which is $600. If rates say steady, it'll take 13 years to pay off the system. We don't expect energy rates to stay steady.
Sherly, if we didn't have the CA Solar Energy rebate, onetime tax deduction, and the southern California sun, it'd take much longer to pay off.
I'm working on an Islanding mechanism that'll double as a home automation control system UPS so that rolling blackouts( during daylight hours ) won't shut our system down.
so it's really not as bad as you think. And if anybody is able to get over 25% efficiency out of solar panels at current panel costs, it'll be threshold crossing time IMO. Hey, hydrogen might even have a future then.
LoB