probably not necessary. Sure, some will replumb their synchronization mechanisms, but in the interim there's a lot of advantage to be gained just by making some minor tweaks and recompiling. OpenMP is a good way to do this, but another approach is add a 2nd tier scheduler. The OS scheduler could be used to manage an a lower tier scheduler which simply breaks work into parallelizable units and schedules threads and processes to do this work. The lower tier scheduler can hand off processes to the OS scheduler to manage and the OS scheduler can manage multiple lower tier schedulers. This may seem like additional overhead, but it would save time and money while we all learn the new paradigms and programming languages required to take advantage of 80 cores.
Don't forget the virtualization folks. They'll clean up given you can simply delete the image and start fresh with a new one. Of course, it'll probably put the antivirus and tech service folks out of business.
joke. Gotta say, of 200+ posts, 75% appear to be the same, tired MS jokes, over and over. Each time, the poster believes (s)he is the only person on the planet clever enough to have come up with a remark about Clippy, Steve and the chair or missed ship dates. The weird thing is, the quality of most of these posts is somewhere around the 6th grade level. Given we have a bunch of 6th graders here, I'd expect ample opinions on the state of schools.
I'm not under the illusion that technology alone is going to fix our wildly broken public schools system. Frankly, the problem is a larger social one. In failing schools, the majority of problem students are on free lunch and come from single parent households. This implies they live in poverty and their home support systems are weak. Typically, these students lack examples of success or sufficient motivators to make the effort required to get an education.
That said, tightly focused research typically solves short-term problems with short-term solutions. I suspect the collaboration with Microsoft is going to yield some unanticipated results which may prove very valuable in solving the schools problem without fixing society or pouring endless amounts of money into education.
Yeah, and that's all Microsofts doing. Right. I forgot that they wrote all those device drivers, not just specs for vendors to adhere to...
don't forget the SDK's, DDK's, PDC's, DevCon's, WinHEC's, etc. Besides spending lots of time and money cultivating the dev community and vendor support, Microsoft does more device and compatibility testing than any other software company, certainly much more than Apple - which was part of my original point...
Microsoft, believe it or not, has listened to their customers for a long time. You go from calling them the market leader in one post to this. That's backpedalling.
Not if it was my original point. Frankly, this is completely subjective and unprovable, but I was throwing you a bone given I was sure you'd mention it. Strangely, your drive to be adversarial overcame your drive to bash Microsoft.
OK, you're wading hip deep through an article about Apple and Microsoft ripping each other off, and you are surprised that by making an excuse for them (oh, they're actually *listening* this time) or implying that Apple doesn't listen to anyone generates this sort of response?
Not really surprised, in fact it was rather predictable. I was hoping some apple fanboy who didn't know his arse from a hole in the ground would chime in (as always) so I could set him straight on a few realities. Looks like I got my wish.
Next, if you think the desktop monopoly has *nothing at all* to do with their revenues outside of *just* Windows Desktop licenses, you're either ignorant or delusional.
Please, explain to me why an enterprise or SMB might choose to run its infrastructure on Windows. You seem to imply that it is related to desktop compatibility or some other mysterious factor related to Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. The reality, if you're capable of breaking free from your reality distortion field for a moment, is that businesses evaluate their IT infrastructure using criteria that has little to do with desktop clients. Factors such as TCO, RAS and feature integration are typically the most important (lots more specific to requirements), and, in fact, Windows stacks up very well against linux, AIX, HP-UX, Novell, T64, NonStop, Solaris,..., having little or nothing to do with what is running on the desktop. In fact, if the desktop were such a factor, Apple should have more than a non-existent share of the server market - which sadly it does not. Perhaps they're too busy scrambling to file their 10-Q or figuring out how to restate earnings without completely deflating their share price.
And you just proved that people hear what they want to hear.. My post was worded specifically in a way that didn't promote Apple at all, I simply defended their QA process
that's right, you didn't promote Apple - but you certainly weren't going to stand for any criticism either...
I bashed your seeming blatant shilling (I notice you didn't even *try* to defend your implied line that Apple doesn't listen to testers)
Uh, okay. I guess an alternative interpretation, that Microsoft hasn't listened to feedback in the past, is beyond comprehension in your black and white, us and them, Apple vs. Microsoft, PS3 vs. XBOX world.
And you are full of it, again. Are you trying to tell me that Apple products are 100% Apple produced? They have such a strong vertical integration monopoly that every Apple computer configuration out there uses exclusively Apple branded products?
Of course not, but a finite number of closed systems with an Apple logo on the side represents a very controlled ecosystem. Here are the Tiger hardware requirements:
- PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
- Built-in FireWire
- At least 256MB of physical RAM
- A built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card supported by your computer
- At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
- DVD drive for installation
Let's see - what does built-in mean again? Apple-supplied means that it comes from who? I guess you can use anyone's RAM at least. Oh, and you could probably add a generic 1394 block IO device - let's just hope it works...
Sure, Apple doesn't actually build or manufacture all the devices in the system, but HTC doesn't make all the devices in their phones, Sony doesn't make all the devices in the PS3 and Panasonic doesn't make all the devices in their DLP televisions - that doesn't make any of these any less closed, nor does it mean you could pop one of them open, stuff a device in and expect it to work. With Windows, pretty much every device gets supported.
Go read the update summary for a recent OSX patch (try http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 771). Added support for third-party hardware. They have to deal with the same broken hardware crap as everyone else.
I'm sure you scoured apple.com to find some post that mentions supporting third-party devices: Third-party
Adds support for Sierra wireless cards AirCard 580 (AC580), PC5220, and for the Novatel V620, S620, and U730 wireless cards for PowerBook computers. yada yada yada... a bunch of software related compatibility fixes and something related to an HP printer
Yeah - pretty amazing - Apple now supports more than 2 wireless cards on Powerbook systems. Oh, and noplace does it say anything about the devices being broken, just that Apple is only now supporting them. What makes you think the vendor had to fix something?
Hardware vendors will either support their products or go out of business. If they have gone out of business, Microsoft *may* port old drivers forward.
Clearly you understand very little about the economics of the PC business. Vendors don't have an incentive to support their devices in the long-term, and are generally reluctant to give the source to their drivers to another company (such as Microsoft).
Uh - whatever gave you that idea? Glitches in hardware interaction aren't why Microsoft is consistently late with their OS releases, and this seems to be the argument you are chasing.
Please, in your infinite wisdom, explain why Microsoft slips OS release dates - oh and don't forget to cite a credible source. I'm not implying supporting a broad matrix of hardware is the only reason, just that it is one Apple doesn't have to contend with.
Weird how you can take probably one of the only potentially pro-Microsoft comments on the entire thread and insult the poster as a fanboy. Yeah - no apple fanboys on/.
I suspect you have limited experience in this space, so from someone with a great deal, there is a world of difference between supporting your own company's platforms and supporting the platforms and devices of hundreds of companies worldwide. What happens when the firmware for that Toshiba laptop needs to get revved because they messed up some ACPI methods? Blow them off? What happens when Sony's new blu-ray drive firmware doesn't return certain revision strings correctly? Blow them off too, right? What about when the wireless radio in HP's new printer fails to come out of standby reliably? What about when Nvidia's new Forceware driver crashes a bunch of legacy systems that represent a non-fractional percentage of the current install-base.
Currently Windows boots on 3+ architectures - x86, IA64, EM64T / AMD64 (not entirely identical btw), and supports devices from many many vendors, none of whom they can force to spend money, time and engineering effort to fix older products (or in some cases new ones). Nor can they force those same companies to deliver prototypes on time or as promised (new processor revisions, platform / device protos). Whether you're aware of it or not, none of this hardware just magically appears defect free.
Yeah, Apple does have to worry about a couple of processor architectures and several devices, but if we argued subjective statements such as "Apple meets timelines" or "Microsoft doesn't", even conceding the point that Microsoft slips lots of products, I can make many arguments why such a comparison is silly to begin with.
In terms of contributing to the thread: Microsoft is the uncontested leader in desktop OS shipments, and #1 overall in terms of server revenue, so yeah, I'm not at all surprised that Apple would rip off their ideas.
Sorry, didn't mean to go on so long - please get back to shouting me down.
"the huge difference being that Apple can actually deliver something on a reasonable time schedule."
- maybe so, but Microsoft, especially for Vista, is actually interested in the feedback they're getting from different communities (users, security, IT). Also, Apple's hardware test matrix is a bit simpler - Apple OS on Apple machines.
I guess I don't get the argument against this law. Company A makes a product that parents don't think their kids should have access to. In spite of this, kids still manage to get it. Legislature bans stores selling the product to minors. Somehow, Company A's inability to get their products into the hands of minors represents infringement on their free speech.
Tell me, who benefits from this law being reversed? Kids? Parents? Execs at and shareholders of the companies making offensive games?
The ratings system is subjective, and laws are never the best way to fix social issues, but there are reasons minors can't drink, smoke, vote, serve in the military, etc.
I submit that the most vocal supporters of this ruling on/. are those who just got back the ability to buy M video games in MN.
perhaps an interesting idea, but just because I can build a computer out of old, recycled clock parts doesn't mean it is going to become my server. Also, iSCSI adoption has increased something like 40% this year. Windows support for iSCSI will improve dramatically with the next revision, and iSCSI costs are only going to decrease.
Also, consider management of one of these AoE boxes. What sort of tools are out there to simplify provisioning, deployment, snapshots and backup, etc. In order for this to go anyplace but the basement of 'the IT guy at work' a whole lot more stuff will be required. Oh yeah, and that probably isn't going to happen with 1 vendor controlling the market.
AoE is not fully baked yet. Put it back in the oven and let me know when the timer goes off.
"Symantec's Huger said the sophisticated nature of the attacks suggest it is the work or well-organized criminals associated with industrial espionage."
Fortunately Symantec is coming up with several ways to protect and save us from this nefarious criminal underground. Sorry Symantec, but my suspicion alert level is glowing bright red.
I don't recall the last time my machine was infected by software that another piece of software could actually do something about it (e.g. virus, trojan, etc). Mostly its just spyware and rootkits that I don't even know are there until my machine starts running really slow. In spite of this, I've been running some sort of AV application on every system I own for the last 5+ years (basically since I plugged into an always on, broadband connection). The other day I began wondering how much power the aggregate compute cycles for my systems has consumed simply loading the AV software and doing whatever scans are necessary. Then I began wondering about this for all machines everywhere. Besides reduced power bills, what benefit could be derived from diverting all those wasted cycles to a task of tangible benefit?
Of course the other side of this argument points to the eradication of polio from a long-term vaccination regimen and resurgence in places where vaccination isn't occurring.
In any case, it tickles some nerve deep in my brain when I realize that the folks that are screaming loudest about computer security are also those who stand to benefit most by hocking their wares.
You have to enter the field with your eyes open. High-tech companies are taking a page directly from manufacturing in this regard. They are using overseas labor whenever possible to reduce costs. This makes them more competitive and gives them the ability to produce goods at lower prices, but also has the effect of driving down wages in the US. Consider that cost of living in most target countries is lower, and that companies are not providing the same level of benefits overseas as required here to attract talent - the economics are difficult to ignore.
One argument is that manufacturing and high-tech are different because a computer scientist / engineer is constantly updating his/her skillset and engaging in new learning. Jobs that require this have historically commanded higher wages and a greater investment by the employee. Ten years ago high-tech companies were willing to invest in US employees by paying for additional higher education - something they're not doing as much anymore. You need to keep your skills sharp, but it is up to you to do this - often on your own time with your own money.
Expect there to be constant pressure on US tech workers for the foreseeable future. Companies will keep trying to send work overseas but will always encounter problems. For instance, it is much more difficult to convey the ideas of intellectual property and ownership to workers in a communist country like China. Supposedly employees there are very willing to take home sensitive technology and sales people are often found working for more than one company (imagine your sales team also works for your competitor). Patents can also be difficult to protect in this type of environment.
Interestingly, Forbes is reporting this month that big overseas partners such as Wipro and Infosys are beginning to outsource their contracts to countries such as Bulgaria and Mauritia, where wages are even lower.
Until the late 90's, an engineer could work at Microsoft for 10-15 years and retire. That made them a lot more willing to tolerate constant death marches and ridiculously unrealistic product schedules. I suspect the current crop of engineers realized that weren't going to become billionaires anytime soon and weren't willing to make the same sacrifices. This is probably not the last we'll see of this sort of thing from Microsoft.
Upper management is certainly hard at work trying to figure out how to get Indian and Chinese developers working on Vienna.
In Washington state there is an organization called WashTech that aims to do just this by performing collective bargaining in as many workplaces as they can on behalf of tech workers. They've already done this at Cingular.
One problem though is that they weren't bringing in enough money through dues to pay staff so they were forced to affiliate with CWA (communications workers of america) which is a lot more like an old style union.
The other problem is that traiditional unions lack a key component for success - ensuring workers can still earn while fighting their employers. A high-tech union needs to have a strong job network component so that displaced workers can do consulting or other work and avoid feeling the pinch while negotiating for better pay, conditions, etc.
not true - Microsoft was a very early adopter of EFI and has been supporting EFI on Itanium since XP originally shipped in '01 (there was an XP Itanium product, though it is no longer supported). Microsoft has also been a contributing member to different EFI forums from the beginning.
The problem is there's no compelling business case for vendors to suddenly begin supporting EFI an architecture that is reaching EOL (x86). There are already x64 systems that support EFI, and a port of the codebase to x86 would be costly, relatively fruitless and require signficant validation efforts.
Apple appears to have done this, though I believe the x86 CPU's they're using are actually x64 CPUs running in 32-bit mode. Seems possible they'd boot in extended mode and then switch once they'd exited EFI.
Slashdot Mirror
probably not necessary. Sure, some will replumb their synchronization mechanisms, but in the interim there's a lot of advantage to be gained just by making some minor tweaks and recompiling. OpenMP is a good way to do this, but another approach is add a 2nd tier scheduler. The OS scheduler could be used to manage an a lower tier scheduler which simply breaks work into parallelizable units and schedules threads and processes to do this work. The lower tier scheduler can hand off processes to the OS scheduler to manage and the OS scheduler can manage multiple lower tier schedulers. This may seem like additional overhead, but it would save time and money while we all learn the new paradigms and programming languages required to take advantage of 80 cores.
Don't forget the virtualization folks. They'll clean up given you can simply delete the image and start fresh with a new one. Of course, it'll probably put the antivirus and tech service folks out of business.
joke. Gotta say, of 200+ posts, 75% appear to be the same, tired MS jokes, over and over. Each time, the poster believes (s)he is the only person on the planet clever enough to have come up with a remark about Clippy, Steve and the chair or missed ship dates. The weird thing is, the quality of most of these posts is somewhere around the 6th grade level. Given we have a bunch of 6th graders here, I'd expect ample opinions on the state of schools.
I'm not under the illusion that technology alone is going to fix our wildly broken public schools system. Frankly, the problem is a larger social one. In failing schools, the majority of problem students are on free lunch and come from single parent households. This implies they live in poverty and their home support systems are weak. Typically, these students lack examples of success or sufficient motivators to make the effort required to get an education.
That said, tightly focused research typically solves short-term problems with short-term solutions. I suspect the collaboration with Microsoft is going to yield some unanticipated results which may prove very valuable in solving the schools problem without fixing society or pouring endless amounts of money into education.
Yeah, and that's all Microsofts doing. Right. I forgot that they wrote all those device drivers, not just specs for vendors to adhere to... don't forget the SDK's, DDK's, PDC's, DevCon's, WinHEC's, etc. Besides spending lots of time and money cultivating the dev community and vendor support, Microsoft does more device and compatibility testing than any other software company, certainly much more than Apple - which was part of my original point... Microsoft, believe it or not, has listened to their customers for a long time. You go from calling them the market leader in one post to this. That's backpedalling.
..., having little or nothing to do with what is running on the desktop. In fact, if the desktop were such a factor, Apple should have more than a non-existent share of the server market - which sadly it does not. Perhaps they're too busy scrambling to file their 10-Q or figuring out how to restate earnings without completely deflating their share price.
Not if it was my original point. Frankly, this is completely subjective and unprovable, but I was throwing you a bone given I was sure you'd mention it. Strangely, your drive to be adversarial overcame your drive to bash Microsoft.
OK, you're wading hip deep through an article about Apple and Microsoft ripping each other off, and you are surprised that by making an excuse for them (oh, they're actually *listening* this time) or implying that Apple doesn't listen to anyone generates this sort of response?
Not really surprised, in fact it was rather predictable. I was hoping some apple fanboy who didn't know his arse from a hole in the ground would chime in (as always) so I could set him straight on a few realities. Looks like I got my wish.
Next, if you think the desktop monopoly has *nothing at all* to do with their revenues outside of *just* Windows Desktop licenses, you're either ignorant or delusional.
Please, explain to me why an enterprise or SMB might choose to run its infrastructure on Windows. You seem to imply that it is related to desktop compatibility or some other mysterious factor related to Microsoft's dominance on the desktop. The reality, if you're capable of breaking free from your reality distortion field for a moment, is that businesses evaluate their IT infrastructure using criteria that has little to do with desktop clients. Factors such as TCO, RAS and feature integration are typically the most important (lots more specific to requirements), and, in fact, Windows stacks up very well against linux, AIX, HP-UX, Novell, T64, NonStop, Solaris,
And you just proved that people hear what they want to hear.. My post was worded specifically in a way that didn't promote Apple at all, I simply defended their QA process
... a bunch of software related compatibility fixes and something related to an HP printer
that's right, you didn't promote Apple - but you certainly weren't going to stand for any criticism either...
I bashed your seeming blatant shilling (I notice you didn't even *try* to defend your implied line that Apple doesn't listen to testers)
Uh, okay. I guess an alternative interpretation, that Microsoft hasn't listened to feedback in the past, is beyond comprehension in your black and white, us and them, Apple vs. Microsoft, PS3 vs. XBOX world.
And you are full of it, again. Are you trying to tell me that Apple products are 100% Apple produced? They have such a strong vertical integration monopoly that every Apple computer configuration out there uses exclusively Apple branded products?
Of course not, but a finite number of closed systems with an Apple logo on the side represents a very controlled ecosystem. Here are the Tiger hardware requirements:
- PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
- Built-in FireWire
- At least 256MB of physical RAM
- A built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card supported by your computer
- At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
- DVD drive for installation
Let's see - what does built-in mean again? Apple-supplied means that it comes from who? I guess you can use anyone's RAM at least. Oh, and you could probably add a generic 1394 block IO device - let's just hope it works...
Sure, Apple doesn't actually build or manufacture all the devices in the system, but HTC doesn't make all the devices in their phones, Sony doesn't make all the devices in the PS3 and Panasonic doesn't make all the devices in their DLP televisions - that doesn't make any of these any less closed, nor does it mean you could pop one of them open, stuff a device in and expect it to work. With Windows, pretty much every device gets supported.
Go read the update summary for a recent OSX patch (try http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 771). Added support for third-party hardware. They have to deal with the same broken hardware crap as everyone else.
I'm sure you scoured apple.com to find some post that mentions supporting third-party devices:
Third-party Adds support for Sierra wireless cards AirCard 580 (AC580), PC5220, and for the Novatel V620, S620, and U730 wireless cards for PowerBook computers.
yada yada yada
Yeah - pretty amazing - Apple now supports more than 2 wireless cards on Powerbook systems. Oh, and noplace does it say anything about the devices being broken, just that Apple is only now supporting them. What makes you think the vendor had to fix something?
Hardware vendors will either support their products or go out of business. If they have gone out of business, Microsoft *may* port old drivers forward.
Clearly you understand very little about the economics of the PC business. Vendors don't have an incentive to support their devices in the long-term, and are generally reluctant to give the source to their drivers to another company (such as Microsoft).
Uh - whatever gave you that idea? Glitches in hardware interaction aren't why Microsoft is consistently late with their OS releases, and this seems to be the argument you are chasing.
Please, in your infinite wisdom, explain why Microsoft slips OS release dates - oh and don't forget to cite a credible source. I'm not implying supporting a broad matrix of hardware is the only reason, just that it is one Apple doesn't have to contend with.
Uncontested leade
Weird how you can take probably one of the only potentially pro-Microsoft comments on the entire thread and insult the poster as a fanboy. Yeah - no apple fanboys on /.
I suspect you have limited experience in this space, so from someone with a great deal, there is a world of difference between supporting your own company's platforms and supporting the platforms and devices of hundreds of companies worldwide. What happens when the firmware for that Toshiba laptop needs to get revved because they messed up some ACPI methods? Blow them off? What happens when Sony's new blu-ray drive firmware doesn't return certain revision strings correctly? Blow them off too, right? What about when the wireless radio in HP's new printer fails to come out of standby reliably? What about when Nvidia's new Forceware driver crashes a bunch of legacy systems that represent a non-fractional percentage of the current install-base.
Currently Windows boots on 3+ architectures - x86, IA64, EM64T / AMD64 (not entirely identical btw), and supports devices from many many vendors, none of whom they can force to spend money, time and engineering effort to fix older products (or in some cases new ones). Nor can they force those same companies to deliver prototypes on time or as promised (new processor revisions, platform / device protos). Whether you're aware of it or not, none of this hardware just magically appears defect free.
Yeah, Apple does have to worry about a couple of processor architectures and several devices, but if we argued subjective statements such as "Apple meets timelines" or "Microsoft doesn't", even conceding the point that Microsoft slips lots of products, I can make many arguments why such a comparison is silly to begin with.
In terms of contributing to the thread: Microsoft is the uncontested leader in desktop OS shipments, and #1 overall in terms of server revenue, so yeah, I'm not at all surprised that Apple would rip off their ideas.
Sorry, didn't mean to go on so long - please get back to shouting me down.
"the huge difference being that Apple can actually deliver something on a reasonable time schedule."
- maybe so, but Microsoft, especially for Vista, is actually interested in the feedback they're getting from different communities (users, security, IT). Also, Apple's hardware test matrix is a bit simpler - Apple OS on Apple machines.
I guess I don't get the argument against this law. Company A makes a product that parents don't think their kids should have access to. In spite of this, kids still manage to get it. Legislature bans stores selling the product to minors. Somehow, Company A's inability to get their products into the hands of minors represents infringement on their free speech.
/. are those who just got back the ability to buy M video games in MN.
Tell me, who benefits from this law being reversed? Kids? Parents? Execs at and shareholders of the companies making offensive games?
The ratings system is subjective, and laws are never the best way to fix social issues, but there are reasons minors can't drink, smoke, vote, serve in the military, etc.
I submit that the most vocal supporters of this ruling on
perhaps an interesting idea, but just because I can build a computer out of old, recycled clock parts doesn't mean it is going to become my server. Also, iSCSI adoption has increased something like 40% this year. Windows support for iSCSI will improve dramatically with the next revision, and iSCSI costs are only going to decrease.
Also, consider management of one of these AoE boxes. What sort of tools are out there to simplify provisioning, deployment, snapshots and backup, etc. In order for this to go anyplace but the basement of 'the IT guy at work' a whole lot more stuff will be required. Oh yeah, and that probably isn't going to happen with 1 vendor controlling the market.
AoE is not fully baked yet. Put it back in the oven and let me know when the timer goes off.
"Symantec's Huger said the sophisticated nature of the attacks suggest it is the work or well-organized criminals associated with industrial espionage."
Fortunately Symantec is coming up with several ways to protect and save us from this nefarious criminal underground. Sorry Symantec, but my suspicion alert level is glowing bright red.
I don't recall the last time my machine was infected by software that another piece of software could actually do something about it (e.g. virus, trojan, etc). Mostly its just spyware and rootkits that I don't even know are there until my machine starts running really slow. In spite of this, I've been running some sort of AV application on every system I own for the last 5+ years (basically since I plugged into an always on, broadband connection). The other day I began wondering how much power the aggregate compute cycles for my systems has consumed simply loading the AV software and doing whatever scans are necessary. Then I began wondering about this for all machines everywhere. Besides reduced power bills, what benefit could be derived from diverting all those wasted cycles to a task of tangible benefit?
Of course the other side of this argument points to the eradication of polio from a long-term vaccination regimen and resurgence in places where vaccination isn't occurring.
In any case, it tickles some nerve deep in my brain when I realize that the folks that are screaming loudest about computer security are also those who stand to benefit most by hocking their wares.
You have to enter the field with your eyes open. High-tech companies are taking a page directly from manufacturing in this regard. They are using overseas labor whenever possible to reduce costs. This makes them more competitive and gives them the ability to produce goods at lower prices, but also has the effect of driving down wages in the US. Consider that cost of living in most target countries is lower, and that companies are not providing the same level of benefits overseas as required here to attract talent - the economics are difficult to ignore.
One argument is that manufacturing and high-tech are different because a computer scientist / engineer is constantly updating his/her skillset and engaging in new learning. Jobs that require this have historically commanded higher wages and a greater investment by the employee. Ten years ago high-tech companies were willing to invest in US employees by paying for additional higher education - something they're not doing as much anymore. You need to keep your skills sharp, but it is up to you to do this - often on your own time with your own money.
Expect there to be constant pressure on US tech workers for the foreseeable future. Companies will keep trying to send work overseas but will always encounter problems. For instance, it is much more difficult to convey the ideas of intellectual property and ownership to workers in a communist country like China. Supposedly employees there are very willing to take home sensitive technology and sales people are often found working for more than one company (imagine your sales team also works for your competitor). Patents can also be difficult to protect in this type of environment.
Interestingly, Forbes is reporting this month that big overseas partners such as Wipro and Infosys are beginning to outsource their contracts to countries such as Bulgaria and Mauritia, where wages are even lower.
Uh, any chance this has to do with the fact that Microsoft began expensing stock options - http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+award+stock,+nix+ options/2100-1014_3-1023840.html
? ID_Content=5041?
- or that employees are pissed about the review system or lack of pay increases over the last 3 years - http://www.washtech.org/news/industry/display.php
Until the late 90's, an engineer could work at Microsoft for 10-15 years and retire. That made them a lot more willing to tolerate constant death marches and ridiculously unrealistic product schedules. I suspect the current crop of engineers realized that weren't going to become billionaires anytime soon and weren't willing to make the same sacrifices. This is probably not the last we'll see of this sort of thing from Microsoft.
Upper management is certainly hard at work trying to figure out how to get Indian and Chinese developers working on Vienna.
In Washington state there is an organization called WashTech that aims to do just this by performing collective bargaining in as many workplaces as they can on behalf of tech workers. They've already done this at Cingular.
One problem though is that they weren't bringing in enough money through dues to pay staff so they were forced to affiliate with CWA (communications workers of america) which is a lot more like an old style union.
The other problem is that traiditional unions lack a key component for success - ensuring workers can still earn while fighting their employers. A high-tech union needs to have a strong job network component so that displaced workers can do consulting or other work and avoid feeling the pinch while negotiating for better pay, conditions, etc.
All Your Cash Register Are Belong To Us!
not true - Microsoft was a very early adopter of EFI and has been supporting EFI on Itanium since XP originally shipped in '01 (there was an XP Itanium product, though it is no longer supported). Microsoft has also been a contributing member to different EFI forums from the beginning.
The problem is there's no compelling business case for vendors to suddenly begin supporting EFI an architecture that is reaching EOL (x86). There are already x64 systems that support EFI, and a port of the codebase to x86 would be costly, relatively fruitless and require signficant validation efforts.
Apple appears to have done this, though I believe the x86 CPU's they're using are actually x64 CPUs running in 32-bit mode. Seems possible they'd boot in extended mode and then switch once they'd exited EFI.