Whenever they go try to take over a new market, someone tries to poach the last market they came in and took over! When will people just leave them alone!??oneone!!
We all know (and I'm not a linux or apple fanboy) that it will be released regardless of whether it is ready or not. People will also buy it.
But the trick, according to the conspiracy theory, is that no one actually upgrades Windows. They buy a PC, which happens to have Windows sold with it by the OEM. I have never upgraded a copy of Windows until I bought my next PC, which came with the OEM version of the next release.
Vista will take over, not because we'll upgrade en-masse, but because people will buy new PCs with it installed by default.
A lot of average consumers will want a PS3, but not being able to find one, they may just opt for the other, much cheaper, Sony console.
Unfortunately, Sony might have shot themselves in the foot here by promising so much with the PS3 in trying to stall Microsoft's market. If you want a PS3, why would you opt for a PS2 with so much that Sony has promised for PS3? I'm sure PS2 will still sell to budget buyers who search it out. But I can't imagine someone who had $600 burning a hole in their pocket for a next gen console, upon finding out that all PS3s are sold out, wouldn't opt for the 360 or Wii instead.
said that often when people say IE is rendering something incorrectly it is actually IE that is doing it correctly while all of the other browsers are rendering it incorrectly. I could tell he was looking at how I would respond to that statement. I just sat there and didn't move.... Needless to say, I didn't get the job.
Right. A candidate who doesn't inquire as to why I felt that way would not get my vote for a job either. As an interviewer, I don't want arrogant candidates as much as you wouldn't want arrogant interviewers. Asking what results showed that would have actually displayed interest in the problem, but your sitting there like a lump of coal just proved you were another OSS fanboy out of college who doesn't understand what it takes to develop software in a corporate environment.
No matter what you believe about IE's standards, it's a lot harder to steer a corporation with hundreds of millions of paying users. I'm sure everyone there would love to change it on a dime. Guess what -- it ain't that easy.
Not everyone is stuck using exclusively Windows-only software.
Uhhh... yeah. But you do realize though that almost everyone in the world uses Windows right now?
Anyway, as I said in my post: "BootCamp and Parallels are a great solution for Mac lovers who want to run Windows". If you use a considerable amount of Windows stuff, it's not worth buying a Mac currently. If Apple would support Windows for real, that would sell a lot more hardware.
My team lead just replaced his ibm laptop with a mac running parallel. It is nice and he said when it comes time for me to replace my dell, I can get one too.
Interesting business you have that lets you run Windows on unsupported hardware.
From the Apple BootCamp FAQ: Important: Apple does not provide technical phone support for using Boot Camp Beta, burning the Macintosh Drivers CD, or installing Windows XP. Support is available on Apple's website. Fee-based support agreements are not available for Boot Camp Beta.
So you can't even buy support if you want to. And if you intend to run Parallels, why would you pay top dollar for a machine that can only run the software you need in virtualization?
BootCamp and Parallels are a great solution for Mac lovers who want to run Windows. They're not a good solution for anyone who runs Windows and wants to buy a Mac to run Windows. I'd consider buying Apple's hardware if that were the case, but Apple is going to have to do better and support Windows for real. Then we'll talk.
There's no reason to assume that Rails will fail in the near term. Rails is based on a method of decomposing software functionality that does back to the 1970s
Yeah, and in the 70s they thought disco and Sonny and Cher were cool. Need I say more?
Re:Ummm, I think they forgot to mention someone...
on
The Man Behind MySpace
·
· Score: 1
If they'd managed to scale better, I imagine they could have kept their position.
BINGO! Combine that with the fact that Friendster required an invite, where MySpace didn't, and you have the exact reason MySpace was a huge success while other social networking sites were not.
Re:Oh, yeah, they didn't care about any of that.
on
The Man Behind MySpace
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've heard that myspace is migrating their servers from an old CF platform to CFMX and CFMX7.
Although one has to wonder what is going on when Microsoft's programmer team for Windows is in the several-thousands and Apple's development team for OS X is around 300.
It's really no mystery, you're comparing the needs of a tiny market versus a vast one.
After the initial 4 year MacOS X development span, it's been incrementally revved to address the needs of a niche user market. Most of these users aren't businesses with extensive numbers of Macs. If they have Macs, they're integrated into other systems (Windows, most likely). On the support side, several thousand existing apps need to be supported, the developers of almost always do whatever Apple asks them to do (like switch to XCode, Universal binaries, e.g.). Apple also uses a considerable amount of OSS, like GCC, Konquerer, SQLite, etc.
Windows, on the other hand, has several hundred million users and tens of millions of existing apps. While only a handful of companies have ever developed their own "enterprise" systems on Mac, millions have done it on Windows. Not only does this need to work for those users, but Microsoft needs to sell it. Apple has the Cult o... I mean captive audience who will pay for $130 upgrade because it has "Dashboard" and "Spotlight". Sales like that are not as easy for Microsoft coming from a business perspective, many of which still run Windows 2K.
For business, Vista's strongest selling points are.NET finally shipping with a boxed copy Windows, IIS 7, WinFX and UAC. That's about it. But it still takes several thousand developers to sort through all off the requirements of several hundred million users and try to develop the things that will ultimately ship and sell more copies of Windows. It's unfortunate Microsoft isn't more successful with the former part (shipping:(... I would have liked to see WinFS make it out the door). I honestly have no idea why Microsoft seems to be targeting the home market with Vista more than the business market. Maybe because they can't ship OSes fast enough to make that a lucrative revenue stream like SQLServer?
It depends on which you value more: developer time or processor time.
I like how Rubyists propose that Ruby is the only language out there that has any potential developer time benefit. Java certainly does have that over C, and Python has that over Java. Having used Python and Ruby considerably, I think the two are pretty much on an equal footing for developer efficiency... except one major difference: Python runs well on the CLR.
Your story there further proves... no matter WHAT the methodology is called, the old adage remains: "Quality, Cost, Schedule: Choose Two." Except in software, the other two can't always be fixed by spending more.
It is a bummer. Where do you turn? MySQL - popular but buggy. Firefox [ed: I assume you mean Firebird] - less buggy but not so popular. Oracle - an extremely popular dinosaur that doesn't even bundle a GUI.
I assume you already know the answer you're looking for here is SQL Server, right?
I don't write databases for banks or anything, but coming from MySQL I've been very impressed with Yukon. Since SQL Server Express finalized, I've moved over to it -- it's a much better environment to work in if you use C# and/or Visual Studio at all. I imagine Microsoft's new strategy of C# Express, SQL Server Express, plus the $300 Windows 2003 Web Edition are going to create a lot of ASP.NET converts out there.
3) Ruby isn't fast, by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is drop-dead simple to integrate native code
This is a good indication that Ruby's implementation is flawed.
There are real time applications that always need multiple languages (e.g games). But when there are alternatives that give you a single, fast language base up front (e.g. Java, IronPython), it seems pointless to go in a direction that would require writing C when that's not desired. Java is no panacea, far from it, but it certainly provides a lot of the benefits of what I'm talking about. The CLR is even better.
What I'm getting at is: the reality is that Ruby could be running on top of either of these VMs right now. In fact, there was an effort to get Ruby on the JavaVM, which got scrapped, and there is a new effort to get Ruby on the CLR. I commend these efforts, but wonder why on earth Matz is spending time writing yet another VM (Rite)?
Here's my take on the counterpoint to Al Gore's claim of global warming... who cares if he's wrong?
If we worked hard as a society to get off the oil and coal crack pipe, would that be a bad thing? The socioeconomic reasons alone are totally worth it. Let's not forget that right now we're at war over the stuff, not to mention spending $50 for a tank of gas. Meanwhile the fatcats at Exxon are crying all the way to the bank, global warming or not.
Think about it, who cares if he's wrong, there's too much good to come out of us pretending that he's right! If you're interested in reading more, I have a longer point about this that I made on my blog last week (click above)
... the fact that Google is an advertising company.
In all of the grand flowery text of TFA about how Google is trying to gather intelligence, process more data, do "academic research", there's absolutely no mention of how they make money: advertising. This piece is nothing more than PR hiding their real purpose behind a bunch of speculation whether they're doing something evil with all of that computing power.
No, actually Google has no evil plan. They're doing something as mundane as what NBC and Clearchannel have done for years: getting paid to help peddle New and Improved crap on the consumer.
Do we take an otherwise unqualified person's thoughts on random subjects seriously because they invented something one time.
Stallman is one of these people. He wrote a compiler and a text editor many years ago, yet still gets so much publicity and people take his thoughts as gospel. Another person in this category is Paul Graham.
There is a major difference between Firefox or Opera defaulting to Google and IE7 defaulting to MSN: neither Firefox or Opera are owned by Google. Google makes no money in the sell of either.
Mod parent down, this is incorrect.
Google makes tremendous amounts of money from Firefox defaulting to Google search, and so does Firefox. Every time you click through a sponsored ad that originally came from the firefox search box, Firefox gets a piece of that money. And, of course, so does Google. Firefox and Opera might as well be owned by them.
I swear this has been reported on here before.
How much you drop on the ground measurement...
on
How Bill Gates Works
·
· Score: 1
BTW, I measure richness in the amount of money you have to drop on the ground to make it worth it to pick it up. If it takes 2 seconds to see the money, then pick it up, take your yearly income, divide by 15768000 (number of 2 second intervals in a year). For me, that comes out to very little money. For Bill, if he makes 2% a year on his money, that comes out to about $63.42. That's how much money Bill has to drop on the ground to make it worth it to pick it up.
Oh, and they left out that Bill swims through a room of treasure like Scrooge McDuck, then lights cigars with $100 bills. That's the kind of stuff I want to read about rich people doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been writing Perl for 6 years now and I've yet to find a more versatile language.
I've been writing in Perl for 13 years and detest supporting the crap code written by people who think it's applicable to every problem domain.
Whenever they go try to take over a new market, someone tries to poach the last market they came in and took over! When will people just leave them alone!??oneone!!
Dude, that troll was from 8 years ago.
We all know (and I'm not a linux or apple fanboy) that it will be released regardless of whether it is ready or not. People will also buy it.
But the trick, according to the conspiracy theory, is that no one actually upgrades Windows. They buy a PC, which happens to have Windows sold with it by the OEM. I have never upgraded a copy of Windows until I bought my next PC, which came with the OEM version of the next release.
Vista will take over, not because we'll upgrade en-masse, but because people will buy new PCs with it installed by default.
Has any other US president ever done as much damage to the US as Bush has?
Lincoln.
A lot of average consumers will want a PS3, but not being able to find one, they may just opt for the other, much cheaper, Sony console.
Unfortunately, Sony might have shot themselves in the foot here by promising so much with the PS3 in trying to stall Microsoft's market. If you want a PS3, why would you opt for a PS2 with so much that Sony has promised for PS3? I'm sure PS2 will still sell to budget buyers who search it out. But I can't imagine someone who had $600 burning a hole in their pocket for a next gen console, upon finding out that all PS3s are sold out, wouldn't opt for the 360 or Wii instead.
said that often when people say IE is rendering something incorrectly it is actually IE that is doing it correctly while all of the other browsers are rendering it incorrectly. I could tell he was looking at how I would respond to that statement. I just sat there and didn't move.... Needless to say, I didn't get the job.
Right. A candidate who doesn't inquire as to why I felt that way would not get my vote for a job either. As an interviewer, I don't want arrogant candidates as much as you wouldn't want arrogant interviewers. Asking what results showed that would have actually displayed interest in the problem, but your sitting there like a lump of coal just proved you were another OSS fanboy out of college who doesn't understand what it takes to develop software in a corporate environment.
No matter what you believe about IE's standards, it's a lot harder to steer a corporation with hundreds of millions of paying users. I'm sure everyone there would love to change it on a dime. Guess what -- it ain't that easy.
Not everyone is stuck using exclusively Windows-only software.
Uhhh... yeah. But you do realize though that almost everyone in the world uses Windows right now?
Anyway, as I said in my post: "BootCamp and Parallels are a great solution for Mac lovers who want to run Windows". If you use a considerable amount of Windows stuff, it's not worth buying a Mac currently. If Apple would support Windows for real, that would sell a lot more hardware.
My team lead just replaced his ibm laptop with a mac running parallel. It is nice and he said when it comes time for me to replace my dell, I can get one too.
Interesting business you have that lets you run Windows on unsupported hardware.
From the Apple BootCamp FAQ: Important: Apple does not provide technical phone support for using Boot Camp Beta, burning the Macintosh Drivers CD, or installing Windows XP. Support is available on Apple's website. Fee-based support agreements are not available for Boot Camp Beta.
So you can't even buy support if you want to. And if you intend to run Parallels, why would you pay top dollar for a machine that can only run the software you need in virtualization?
BootCamp and Parallels are a great solution for Mac lovers who want to run Windows. They're not a good solution for anyone who runs Windows and wants to buy a Mac to run Windows. I'd consider buying Apple's hardware if that were the case, but Apple is going to have to do better and support Windows for real. Then we'll talk.
Um... or maybe... just maybe... they knew they had to improve it in the future but just hadn't gotten there yet.
I know, CRAZY thought.
There's no reason to assume that Rails will fail in the near term. Rails is based on a method of decomposing software functionality that does back to the 1970s
Yeah, and in the 70s they thought disco and Sonny and Cher were cool. Need I say more?
If they'd managed to scale better, I imagine they could have kept their position.
BINGO! Combine that with the fact that Friendster required an invite, where MySpace didn't, and you have the exact reason MySpace was a huge success while other social networking sites were not.
I've heard that myspace is migrating their servers from an old CF platform to CFMX and CFMX7.
AFAIK they're migrating to straight up ASP.NET 2.0.
As for bugs on Myspace, I wouldn't know. I think I'm over the age limit for frequent myspace use by about 17 years.
Although one has to wonder what is going on when Microsoft's programmer team for Windows is in the several-thousands and Apple's development team for OS X is around 300.
.NET finally shipping with a boxed copy Windows, IIS 7, WinFX and UAC. That's about it. But it still takes several thousand developers to sort through all off the requirements of several hundred million users and try to develop the things that will ultimately ship and sell more copies of Windows. It's unfortunate Microsoft isn't more successful with the former part (shipping :(... I would have liked to see WinFS make it out the door). I honestly have no idea why Microsoft seems to be targeting the home market with Vista more than the business market. Maybe because they can't ship OSes fast enough to make that a lucrative revenue stream like SQLServer?
It's really no mystery, you're comparing the needs of a tiny market versus a vast one.
After the initial 4 year MacOS X development span, it's been incrementally revved to address the needs of a niche user market. Most of these users aren't businesses with extensive numbers of Macs. If they have Macs, they're integrated into other systems (Windows, most likely). On the support side, several thousand existing apps need to be supported, the developers of almost always do whatever Apple asks them to do (like switch to XCode, Universal binaries, e.g.). Apple also uses a considerable amount of OSS, like GCC, Konquerer, SQLite, etc.
Windows, on the other hand, has several hundred million users and tens of millions of existing apps. While only a handful of companies have ever developed their own "enterprise" systems on Mac, millions have done it on Windows. Not only does this need to work for those users, but Microsoft needs to sell it. Apple has the Cult o... I mean captive audience who will pay for $130 upgrade because it has "Dashboard" and "Spotlight". Sales like that are not as easy for Microsoft coming from a business perspective, many of which still run Windows 2K.
For business, Vista's strongest selling points are
It depends on which you value more: developer time or processor time.
I like how Rubyists propose that Ruby is the only language out there that has any potential developer time benefit. Java certainly does have that over C, and Python has that over Java. Having used Python and Ruby considerably, I think the two are pretty much on an equal footing for developer efficiency... except one major difference: Python runs well on the CLR.
Your story there further proves... no matter WHAT the methodology is called, the old adage remains: "Quality, Cost, Schedule: Choose Two." Except in software, the other two can't always be fixed by spending more.
It is a bummer. Where do you turn? MySQL - popular but buggy. Firefox [ed: I assume you mean Firebird] - less buggy but not so popular. Oracle - an extremely popular dinosaur that doesn't even bundle a GUI.
I assume you already know the answer you're looking for here is SQL Server, right?
I don't write databases for banks or anything, but coming from MySQL I've been very impressed with Yukon. Since SQL Server Express finalized, I've moved over to it -- it's a much better environment to work in if you use C# and/or Visual Studio at all. I imagine Microsoft's new strategy of C# Express, SQL Server Express, plus the $300 Windows 2003 Web Edition are going to create a lot of ASP.NET converts out there.
3) Ruby isn't fast, by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is drop-dead simple to integrate native code
This is a good indication that Ruby's implementation is flawed.
There are real time applications that always need multiple languages (e.g games). But when there are alternatives that give you a single, fast language base up front (e.g. Java, IronPython), it seems pointless to go in a direction that would require writing C when that's not desired. Java is no panacea, far from it, but it certainly provides a lot of the benefits of what I'm talking about. The CLR is even better.
What I'm getting at is: the reality is that Ruby could be running on top of either of these VMs right now. In fact, there was an effort to get Ruby on the JavaVM, which got scrapped, and there is a new effort to get Ruby on the CLR. I commend these efforts, but wonder why on earth Matz is spending time writing yet another VM (Rite)?
Here's my take on the counterpoint to Al Gore's claim of global warming... who cares if he's wrong?
If we worked hard as a society to get off the oil and coal crack pipe, would that be a bad thing? The socioeconomic reasons alone are totally worth it. Let's not forget that right now we're at war over the stuff, not to mention spending $50 for a tank of gas. Meanwhile the fatcats at Exxon are crying all the way to the bank, global warming or not.
Think about it, who cares if he's wrong, there's too much good to come out of us pretending that he's right! If you're interested in reading more, I have a longer point about this that I made on my blog last week (click above)
... the fact that Google is an advertising company.
In all of the grand flowery text of TFA about how Google is trying to gather intelligence, process more data, do "academic research", there's absolutely no mention of how they make money: advertising. This piece is nothing more than PR hiding their real purpose behind a bunch of speculation whether they're doing something evil with all of that computing power.
No, actually Google has no evil plan. They're doing something as mundane as what NBC and Clearchannel have done for years: getting paid to help peddle New and Improved crap on the consumer.
Charlie Murphy is faster than light!?!! zOMG!
Do we take an otherwise unqualified person's thoughts on random subjects seriously because they invented something one time.
Stallman is one of these people. He wrote a compiler and a text editor many years ago, yet still gets so much publicity and people take his thoughts as gospel. Another person in this category is Paul Graham.
Anybody who can point me to some hate campaigns by major companies that seem(ed) to be effective?
Um, Apple's very first Macintosh ad in 1984?
There is a major difference between Firefox or Opera defaulting to Google and IE7 defaulting to MSN: neither Firefox or Opera are owned by Google. Google makes no money in the sell of either.
Mod parent down, this is incorrect.
Google makes tremendous amounts of money from Firefox defaulting to Google search, and so does Firefox. Every time you click through a sponsored ad that originally came from the firefox search box, Firefox gets a piece of that money. And, of course, so does Google. Firefox and Opera might as well be owned by them.
I swear this has been reported on here before.
BTW, I measure richness in the amount of money you have to drop on the ground to make it worth it to pick it up. If it takes 2 seconds to see the money, then pick it up, take your yearly income, divide by 15768000 (number of 2 second intervals in a year). For me, that comes out to very little money. For Bill, if he makes 2% a year on his money, that comes out to about $63.42. That's how much money Bill has to drop on the ground to make it worth it to pick it up.
Oh, and they left out that Bill swims through a room of treasure like Scrooge McDuck, then lights cigars with $100 bills. That's the kind of stuff I want to read about rich people doing.