I don't totally agree there because you have apps that are required to run that only have Windows versions. You also have the learning curve. Entourage may look like Outlook but it is not Outlook. For better or worse thats just how it is. Hiring competent staff to set things up is nice as long as you dont need to interact with others on Word/Excel, you can get over Entourage/Outlook and your application is web based or has a linux version that works with whatever you have Fedora,BSD,Gnome,KDE, etc etc.
Im sitting here in my Sunday chair and I cant think whats worse?
1. That I am replying to this article
2. That I read the other replies to this article
3. I clicked on the RSS feed to actually *read* this article
Votes will be collected and tallied unfortunately I think they all tally to say that Im an idiot today:)
Where you see a problem I see a great potential business in selling little tiny alcohol wipes that people can use after they touch the reader to not leave anything behind.
Maybe the company will sell them with the units to alleve peoples fear...
And the other choice would be???? Mac?? sure if Im at home.. Linux? sure if Im a proficent computer user. Unfortunately the majority of pc users fall somewhere in between. Smart enough to use one but skills lacking enough to know outside the box.
I would love to see things just as much as the next guy and each o/s has its strong and weak points. The guy at the top is always disliked until he falls (Hey look at America! *g*)
Funny that you should mention politicans because sometimes using Windows is like voting for the lesser of two evils:) We (computer world) put them there and then complain about the job they're doing. However, whenever there's a chance to overthrow and the vote comes back up they seem to win again...
Im not making the rules just living within them:)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up, so the consensus is that even with the royalties they still lose money? Does anyone know what the actual cost per unit is and per royalty? I would imagine it has to be something realistic like break even at 10 games or something.
For whatever reasons its still considered a successful campaign. The console losing money on sale and made up in game royalties I thought was pretty standard for all console makers? So of course they are in the red as the game choices are light. The goal here is penetration. Talk about price? Everywhere I go I read the ps3 is going to be 799 or 899 which is double that of 360, so those that are talking about rich MS lovers may wish to hold judgment before they shell out serious cash as well.
I will say that before xbox I would never have even considered purchasing a console, I played games on my pc. I now own 2 xboxes and use it for media, movies and games. So if anything MS (in my experience) created market share as much as it penetrated it somewhat.
The ps3 vs xbox war should get interesting once titles start rolling out and ps3 is in the market. I dont think xbox will win this round but they will gain some. The long term problem here is that MS is now working on the next version of their product while Sony is still finishing up its current version. Over time this may play more into the hands of MS with a large release window they can pick and choose around marketing/sales and get a jump on the competition.
I would strongly disagree, if you look at what Microsoft has been doing over the past 15 years or so they actually have a lot of long term R&D in the works.
I remember a few years ago reading some articles about MS hiring professors and visionaries around the campuses of some of the best colleges letting these guys come up with things that may some day be put into their products. Natural language algorithms was a pretty big one tossed into Outlook (did anyone ever try to schedule Outlook and the date type second friday after memorial day? or similar).
Im sure marketing will be some of it, including Xbox 360 with PS3 on the horizon. I dont think Vista/office will be marketed all that much. I do think they have alot of seminars and in the trench kind of stuff for Exchange 12, SQL 2005, Vista, Office Vista, Vista Server, CRM, all taking place in 2007.
This was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It was much cheaper (at that time) to support the Afghan rebels (vs Russia), the Iraqis (vs Iran) then to get US support to do it themselves. When Russia collapsed we stopped supporting them. I guess the problem is that these people need to hate, fight, kill we kept them busy against neighboring countries and when that was over they turned to the hand that feeds.
At the end of the day it is a lose-lose for them. Eventually Iraq will stabilize, and this will put alot of pressure on similar countries. Iran has already had protests in its borders by its younger generation for free elections and things of that nature.
The core problem again and still is Israel. If Palestine gets its own state and we are on that road (whether Hamas run or not), and Israel can withstand a few more attacks without major retialiation I think we will be in a good position. Democracy breeds a middle class, a feeling that an individual can make a change, by voting, or standing up and being able to voice an opinion. On top of that the ability to provide a decent life for your wife and kids helps too.
I believe we are hated by the middle east mainly because we continue to back Israel no matter what they do. If the US would stop backing Israel blindly then we would probably have had a better chance. Israel has become more in line in recent years, but the cast is already made. The hatred is already there.
Also, dont forget when you are at the top everyone wants to knock you off. Somewhere in the past 20 years we became the world's police because for some reason other countries cant seem to feed or defend themselves.
Overall I like the plan though. To stop the upbringing of terrorists in said countries you have to turn them from dictatorships to free society. Once that is complete it can bring stability to that region where they look for political solutions instead of blowing themselves up for the cause.
The value of the company is done in a myriad of ways, but a basic is what is the networth of the company. A quick look at Veritas stock price * shares equals its value. Theres other things like P&L or EBITA and then of course you have liabilities, assets etc. So lets say Veritas says that 80% of its company is in its Intellectual Property. Well if the company is valued at 100million (80 mil in IP), the selling price is often 2-3 times annual revs. So if revs are 50 million, then the company could be worth 100 million and sell for 150 million.
My numbers arent mathematically accurate Im just showing different 'views'. I took my company public 2 years ago and turned all this stuff over to a CEO and I still dont understand it! haha
Well for those people who are using Vonage or ATT this is already the case. Everything is IP based and switched into the telecom networks. For example, my home # is also linked to my cell and work #. When someone calls my VOIP phone @ home it rings my cell, and direct line at work. Very nice, whats even better is the actual caller ID comes through so this isnt some call forwarding feature at the end line this is done at the switching end. It seems these companies have already solved/utilized the ability to interconnect data/voice.
I heard that this kind of thing has been going on for the past few years to save money. Didnt MCI or ATT try to circumvent fcc charges by routing voice via IP to Canada and then overseas? or vice versa
No, the issue here is that people who are virtualizing in the enterprise are most likely going to have linux/unix/oracle or other type servers. Right now their only choice would really be vmware. All the vmware products run on linux, including of course, esx which is its own linux variant.
Now you can say, well lets look at our options with Server2003 as the host o/s. Why? Because of products like Livestate, Veritas, and the billions of other vendors peddling backup and bare metal type solutions. Not to mention MS' own volume shadow snapshot.
I am not a linux expert (ran hp/ux at an isp years ago) but I dont recall any VSS type stuff on linux.
While I really like VMware and think its better than MS product, the MS product is catching up. The free part was done by VMware first and MS is simply responding. Dont forget that MS does support virtualization. If you look at their new licensing for 2003 R2 they support 4 server licenses for 1 server license purchased on each physical machine. This is a very good deal! So now you can purchase one server license for each 'physical' machine and run 4 vm's on each one (or combination of).
The supporting linux simply means that there is default settings for linux enviornments much like vmware and if you call MS because you are having a virtualization issue or driver issue in linux on Virtual Server they will work with you on solving it.
This again is nice, because you can get the flexibility of linux running on the same box as Windows. So you get the nice domain integration and AD security model (or easy anyway) and you can still drop a linux VM on top of it for file/print or to do some other tasks. It looks like MS idea here is to simply say run anything virtualization product or software you want but run it under the Windows o/s. To be honest, I have dozens of clients running 2000/2003 server as the host and several VM's in vmware. The boxes untouched and vlan'ed (you can vlan the host and not the guest) are very very stable.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't totally agree there because you have apps that are required to run that only have Windows versions. You also have the learning curve. Entourage may look like Outlook but it is not Outlook. For better or worse thats just how it is. Hiring competent staff to set things up is nice as long as you dont need to interact with others on Word/Excel, you can get over Entourage/Outlook and your application is web based or has a linux version that works with whatever you have Fedora,BSD,Gnome,KDE, etc etc.
Im sitting here in my Sunday chair and I cant think whats worse? 1. That I am replying to this article 2. That I read the other replies to this article 3. I clicked on the RSS feed to actually *read* this article Votes will be collected and tallied unfortunately I think they all tally to say that Im an idiot today :)
Where you see a problem I see a great potential business in selling little tiny alcohol wipes that people can use after they touch the reader to not leave anything behind. Maybe the company will sell them with the units to alleve peoples fear ...
And the other choice would be???? Mac?? sure if Im at home.. Linux? sure if Im a proficent computer user. Unfortunately the majority of pc users fall somewhere in between. Smart enough to use one but skills lacking enough to know outside the box. I would love to see things just as much as the next guy and each o/s has its strong and weak points. The guy at the top is always disliked until he falls (Hey look at America! *g*) Funny that you should mention politicans because sometimes using Windows is like voting for the lesser of two evils :) We (computer world) put them there and then complain about the job they're doing. However, whenever there's a chance to overthrow and the vote comes back up they seem to win again ...
Im not making the rules just living within them :)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up, so the consensus is that even with the royalties they still lose money? Does anyone know what the actual cost per unit is and per royalty? I would imagine it has to be something realistic like break even at 10 games or something.
For whatever reasons its still considered a successful campaign. The console losing money on sale and made up in game royalties I thought was pretty standard for all console makers? So of course they are in the red as the game choices are light. The goal here is penetration. Talk about price? Everywhere I go I read the ps3 is going to be 799 or 899 which is double that of 360, so those that are talking about rich MS lovers may wish to hold judgment before they shell out serious cash as well. I will say that before xbox I would never have even considered purchasing a console, I played games on my pc. I now own 2 xboxes and use it for media, movies and games. So if anything MS (in my experience) created market share as much as it penetrated it somewhat. The ps3 vs xbox war should get interesting once titles start rolling out and ps3 is in the market. I dont think xbox will win this round but they will gain some. The long term problem here is that MS is now working on the next version of their product while Sony is still finishing up its current version. Over time this may play more into the hands of MS with a large release window they can pick and choose around marketing/sales and get a jump on the competition.
I would strongly disagree, if you look at what Microsoft has been doing over the past 15 years or so they actually have a lot of long term R&D in the works. I remember a few years ago reading some articles about MS hiring professors and visionaries around the campuses of some of the best colleges letting these guys come up with things that may some day be put into their products. Natural language algorithms was a pretty big one tossed into Outlook (did anyone ever try to schedule Outlook and the date type second friday after memorial day? or similar). Im sure marketing will be some of it, including Xbox 360 with PS3 on the horizon. I dont think Vista/office will be marketed all that much. I do think they have alot of seminars and in the trench kind of stuff for Exchange 12, SQL 2005, Vista, Office Vista, Vista Server, CRM, all taking place in 2007.
This was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It was much cheaper (at that time) to support the Afghan rebels (vs Russia), the Iraqis (vs Iran) then to get US support to do it themselves. When Russia collapsed we stopped supporting them. I guess the problem is that these people need to hate, fight, kill we kept them busy against neighboring countries and when that was over they turned to the hand that feeds. At the end of the day it is a lose-lose for them. Eventually Iraq will stabilize, and this will put alot of pressure on similar countries. Iran has already had protests in its borders by its younger generation for free elections and things of that nature. The core problem again and still is Israel. If Palestine gets its own state and we are on that road (whether Hamas run or not), and Israel can withstand a few more attacks without major retialiation I think we will be in a good position. Democracy breeds a middle class, a feeling that an individual can make a change, by voting, or standing up and being able to voice an opinion. On top of that the ability to provide a decent life for your wife and kids helps too.
I believe we are hated by the middle east mainly because we continue to back Israel no matter what they do. If the US would stop backing Israel blindly then we would probably have had a better chance. Israel has become more in line in recent years, but the cast is already made. The hatred is already there. Also, dont forget when you are at the top everyone wants to knock you off. Somewhere in the past 20 years we became the world's police because for some reason other countries cant seem to feed or defend themselves. Overall I like the plan though. To stop the upbringing of terrorists in said countries you have to turn them from dictatorships to free society. Once that is complete it can bring stability to that region where they look for political solutions instead of blowing themselves up for the cause.
The value of the company is done in a myriad of ways, but a basic is what is the networth of the company. A quick look at Veritas stock price * shares equals its value. Theres other things like P&L or EBITA and then of course you have liabilities, assets etc. So lets say Veritas says that 80% of its company is in its Intellectual Property. Well if the company is valued at 100million (80 mil in IP), the selling price is often 2-3 times annual revs. So if revs are 50 million, then the company could be worth 100 million and sell for 150 million. My numbers arent mathematically accurate Im just showing different 'views'. I took my company public 2 years ago and turned all this stuff over to a CEO and I still dont understand it! haha
Well for those people who are using Vonage or ATT this is already the case. Everything is IP based and switched into the telecom networks. For example, my home # is also linked to my cell and work #. When someone calls my VOIP phone @ home it rings my cell, and direct line at work. Very nice, whats even better is the actual caller ID comes through so this isnt some call forwarding feature at the end line this is done at the switching end. It seems these companies have already solved/utilized the ability to interconnect data/voice. I heard that this kind of thing has been going on for the past few years to save money. Didnt MCI or ATT try to circumvent fcc charges by routing voice via IP to Canada and then overseas? or vice versa
No, the issue here is that people who are virtualizing in the enterprise are most likely going to have linux/unix/oracle or other type servers. Right now their only choice would really be vmware. All the vmware products run on linux, including of course, esx which is its own linux variant.
Now you can say, well lets look at our options with Server2003 as the host o/s. Why? Because of products like Livestate, Veritas, and the billions of other vendors peddling backup and bare metal type solutions. Not to mention MS' own volume shadow snapshot.
I am not a linux expert (ran hp/ux at an isp years ago) but I dont recall any VSS type stuff on linux.
While I really like VMware and think its better than MS product, the MS product is catching up. The free part was done by VMware first and MS is simply responding. Dont forget that MS does support virtualization. If you look at their new licensing for 2003 R2 they support 4 server licenses for 1 server license purchased on each physical machine. This is a very good deal! So now you can purchase one server license for each 'physical' machine and run 4 vm's on each one (or combination of).
The supporting linux simply means that there is default settings for linux enviornments much like vmware and if you call MS because you are having a virtualization issue or driver issue in linux on Virtual Server they will work with you on solving it.
This again is nice, because you can get the flexibility of linux running on the same box as Windows. So you get the nice domain integration and AD security model (or easy anyway) and you can still drop a linux VM on top of it for file/print or to do some other tasks. It looks like MS idea here is to simply say run anything virtualization product or software you want but run it under the Windows o/s. To be honest, I have dozens of clients running 2000/2003 server as the host and several VM's in vmware. The boxes untouched and vlan'ed (you can vlan the host and not the guest) are very very stable.