.Net... the saga... - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 100

Thread: .Net... the saga...

  1. #16
    Dave Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...


    "Eddie Burdak" <eburdak@pilatus-aircraft.com> wrote:
    >Arthur,
    >Temporary being how long?
    >
    >I should imagine major clients dont all switch to the new OS as soon
    >as its available for a number of good reasons.
    >
    >I may be XP'd at home,but the Office is still NT4 for the box's and
    >'98 or 2000 for the laptops.
    >
    >Eddie
    >
    >

    It's just very unlucky timing for Microsoft (and us). Companies are realizing
    that their business will roll along just fine with Win 2000 or NT4 - why
    not wait for 2 or maybe even 3 O/S versions before rolling out to their users?
    Now if I can just sneak that extra 2 gig on top of my 10 meg install... (and
    if I can just sneak that extra 1 month per system for a conversion onto my
    invoices...)





  2. #17
    Eddie Burdak Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    Dave,
    Dave wrote:
    > "Eddie Burdak" <eburdak@pilatus-aircraft.com> wrote:
    >> Arthur,
    >> Temporary being how long?
    >>
    >> I should imagine major clients dont all switch to the new OS as

    soon
    >> as its available for a number of good reasons.
    >>
    >> I may be XP'd at home,but the Office is still NT4 for the box's and
    >> '98 or 2000 for the laptops.
    >>
    >> Eddie
    >>
    >>

    > It's just very unlucky timing for Microsoft (and us). Companies are
    > realizing that their business will roll along just fine with Win

    2000
    > or NT4 - why not wait for 2 or maybe even 3 O/S versions before
    > rolling out to their users? Now if I can just sneak that extra 2 gig
    > on top of my 10 meg install... (and if I can just sneak that extra 1
    > month per system for a conversion onto my invoices...)


    Our box's dont just run MS products. They run some serious stuff
    (CAD/CAE oh yes and that bloody SAP). To get everything interfacing
    with everything else we obviously have it working under NT. Now change
    the base OS and watch the system fall over. I'm sure they are testing
    box's with XP on them but it will be a while before we go down that
    route if necassary (as you point out).

    As you say "if it aint broke dont fix it". But considering the other
    stuff we have on these Box's (non MS) which are critical (then why put
    it on an MS box I hear you cry) the amount of testing we'd have to do
    does not justify simply upping to the next OS because its the bees
    knees.

    I wonder what the % is for OS's in use today and by market. XP will be
    up there on the family machine - but quite frankely we buy a new box
    for the office today and bung on NT. I guess NT/2000 has it for the
    corporate user.

    Eddie


  3. #18
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:47:39 +0100, "Eddie Burdak"
    <eburdak@pilatus-aircraft.com> wrote:

    >I wonder what the % is for OS's in use today and by market. XP will be
    >up there on the family machine - but quite frankely we buy a new box
    >for the office today and bung on NT. I guess NT/2000 has it for the
    >corporate user.


    I think Microsoft's attitude in constantly bringing out new operating
    systems, servers, and technologies is beginning to frighten away a lot
    of corporate users, who are increasingly fearful that an arbitrary
    upgrade could cause a core program to fail. All the while the
    important men and women in the boardroom had to wait for their
    printouts to tell 'em how rich they were that week, there were excuses
    enough for improving IT. Most improvement, however, has simply been
    achieved by the massive increases in hardware technology and
    performance in the past five years. Hardware has come on in leaps and
    bounds and prices have fallen considerably. What corresponding "orders
    of magnitude" improvements have there been in software development
    during this period?

    But in a way, this hardware performance boost was essential to fulfil
    the need for more power because Microsoft continually upped the ante
    with increased bloatware, thus constructing its own vicious circle.
    They made fast CPUs and extra RAM essential to counteract bloated
    software design, but the incessant upgrading of hardware that followed
    has now made further software upgrades hardly needed any longer. After
    all, hundreds of thousands (millions?) are still using Windows 98
    around the world and are quite happy doing so.

    MM

  4. #19
    Jason Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >I think Microsoft's attitude in constantly bringing out new operating
    >systems, servers, and technologies is beginning to frighten away a lot
    >of corporate users, who are increasingly fearful that an arbitrary
    >upgrade could cause a core program to fail. All the while the
    >important men and women in the boardroom had to wait for their
    >printouts to tell 'em how rich they were that week, there were excuses
    >enough for improving IT. Most improvement, however, has simply been
    >achieved by the massive increases in hardware technology and
    >performance in the past five years. Hardware has come on in leaps and
    >bounds and prices have fallen considerably. What corresponding "orders
    >of magnitude" improvements have there been in software development
    >during this period?


    Software does not improve in an "orders of magnitude" way. Software improvements
    are more linear. I'll let you figure out why, if you care to believe that
    such a thing is possible.

    >But in a way, this hardware performance boost was essential to fulfil
    >the need for more power because Microsoft continually upped the ante
    >with increased bloatware, thus constructing its own vicious circle.
    >They made fast CPUs and extra RAM essential to counteract bloated
    >software design, but the incessant upgrading of hardware that followed
    >has now made further software upgrades hardly needed any longer. After
    >all, hundreds of thousands (millions?) are still using Windows 98
    >around the world and are quite happy doing so.
    >
    >MM


    What security features does Windows 98 have? Do you know what the maximum
    file size is for Windows 98? When you shut down a misbehaving process in
    Windows 98, how often do you end up just rebooting the machine? How long
    will Windows 98 run between reboots for a typical business user? How many
    programs can you run simultaneously on Windows 98 before performance degrades
    noticably? How do you administer 1000 Windows 98 machines from a central
    location? How does networking performance on 98 compare?

    Windows 98 is better than Windows 3.1, and it requires a lot less memory
    and CPU to run than Windows 2000 or Windows XP, but it is not nearly as robust
    or stable as 2000 or XP. Its base is still 16-bit code, and every call to
    a device driver has to chunk from 32 bits to 16 bits and back again. It
    does not do a good job of isolating processes, and it tends to leak memory
    and *gasp* resources, of which there is a very limited supply. Its virtual
    memory manager is antiquated.

    Just because people are still using it, that does not mean it is the best
    thing available. VB6 is still available, but that does not mean it is the
    best development tool... heh. Actually, let me do a little better than
    that. People are still programming in VB4-16 for Windows 3.1. Yes, there
    are still 3.1 machines out there being used regularly.

    For business users, Windows 2000 is far better than Windows 98. It runs
    much longer without crashing, and allows many programs to run at the same
    time without killing the performance of the machine.

    What are you, Mike? "Retro-Man," defender of all that is old and obsolete?
    Windows 98 - really!


  5. #20
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    On 30 Oct 2002 16:13:52 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >What security features does Windows 98 have? Do you know what the maximum
    >file size is for Windows 98? When you shut down a misbehaving process in
    >Windows 98, how often do you end up just rebooting the machine? How long
    >will Windows 98 run between reboots for a typical business user? How many
    >programs can you run simultaneously on Windows 98 before performance degrades
    >noticably? How do you administer 1000 Windows 98 machines from a central
    >location? How does networking performance on 98 compare?


    All very fine points, no doubt. But they don't affect many on a
    regular basis. I cannot remember the last time I had to reboot a BSOD
    Win98SE PC, let alone a Win95a one. For much office work, the machines
    just work, all day and every day. Developers who are pushing the
    machines to the limit most of the time demand better reliability,
    sure, and to that end I'm not using Windows at all now. But you can
    cavil at the shortcomings in Windows 98 all you like. The fact is that
    for hundreds of thousands of users, at work and in the home, it *is*
    all they need. You ain't gonna sell "stability" to an ordinary
    consumer for whom it isn't a problem.

    >Windows 98 is better than Windows 3.1, and it requires a lot less memory
    >and CPU to run than Windows 2000 or Windows XP, but it is not nearly as robust
    >or stable as 2000 or XP. Its base is still 16-bit code, and every call to
    >a device driver has to chunk from 32 bits to 16 bits and back again. It
    >does not do a good job of isolating processes, and it tends to leak memory
    >and *gasp* resources, of which there is a very limited supply. Its virtual
    >memory manager is antiquated.


    Okay. Stop a member of the public in the street (find one who is
    running Windows 98 - you won't need to stop very many) and then try to
    sell them a better "virtual memory manager". On the other hand, if you
    tried to sell them on the idea that they could save money by not
    upgrading willy nilly, they'd start listening to you! They might even
    give you a quid for the tip.

    >Just because people are still using it, that does not mean it is the best
    >thing available.


    Oh, and XP *is* the best thing available?!! Or just the best thing
    until Microsoft bring out the *next* best thing?!!! What's the best
    car available? Well, whatever. I can get by quite satisfactorily,
    safely and cheaply with my little Italian job, 5,995 brand new. You
    just don't NEED the biggest, boldest and brashest solution for every
    problem! We ain't all Americans!

    > VB6 is still available, but that does not mean it is the
    >best development tool... heh.


    Actually, it does. VB6 is the best tool there is for creating fast
    business solutions. Microsoft says so on the box. Well, they used the
    words "most productive" instead of "best", but the approbation has the
    same weight.

    > Actually, let me do a little better than that.


    Better than what? You mean you're going to stop denigrating classic VB
    for a change...?!!

    > People are still programming in VB4-16 for Windows 3.1. Yes, there
    >are still 3.1 machines out there being used regularly.


    Well, there ya go! And do they complain about getting by on a two-bit
    "virtual memory manager"? Of course not. They might moan a bit about
    some limitations, but then find these are hardly intrusive for most
    users. The only versions of Windows I would say absolutely sucked were
    versions 1 and 2, the latter which I actually "used" on an AT box
    about 12 years ago. So, yes, improvement is essential when there is a
    lot to be improved. But once you get to a certain level, improving it
    even more often ends up to be tinkering at the edges, adding bells and
    whistles, and doing all of that purely to stay in the market place.
    Meanwhile there is a plethora of products crying out for genuine
    stability and trustworthiness. Moreover, it's not as though 2000 or XP
    never crash. Of course they do! Can you say the same about Linux?
    Linux is *renowned* for its stability and lack of viral attacks.

    >For business users, Windows 2000 is far better than Windows 98.


    But is it inferior to XP? If so, shouldn't you be urging all business
    users to upgrade to XP pronto? If not, why have XP at all?

    > It runs much longer without crashing, and allows many programs to run at the same
    >time without killing the performance of the machine.


    And how many ordinary users are going to stretch the performance that
    much by running a word processor, e-mail, a spreadsheet and a browser?
    Not a lot. So why would they ever want Windows 2000?

    >What are you, Mike? "Retro-Man," defender of all that is old and obsolete?


    I quite like the sound of Retro-Man! And defender sounds pretty good,
    too. But defence of classic designs is not to render them old and
    obsolete. Take the tin can. If it were the Microsoft tin can, you'd
    need a special opener (licensed, of course) to get into it. It
    wouldn't look anything like a can, but would have knobs and buttons
    on, plus a funny ledge for storing photos of the kids. It would
    probably just contain a voucher you'd take to a local can service to
    obtain the actual contents (licensed). And as for owning it? Pah!
    You'd only be renting the nutrition for the brief duration it passes
    through your body (licensed).

    > Windows 98 - really!


    Yes, really! You said it. We should only ever buy WHAT WE NEED and no
    more. That is similar to the ethos of eXtreme Programming after all,
    so why should it be any different for any other kind of consumer or
    goods purchased?

    MM

  6. #21
    Jason Sobell \(iGadget\) Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    Guys, pointless argument.
    Many people would get around perfectly well in an old model 'T' Ford, but
    not everyone. Some people want more luxury, some want longer range, more
    luggage space, more speed, nicer appearance, and some need 4-wheel drive to
    get over boulders.
    The point is that technology moves on and people have a more diverse set of
    desires and requirements than Ford designed his car to meet in 1909. The
    same applies to Windows, and while my parents were fairly happy with
    WordPerfect 5.1 on DOS, they wanted Word when Windows 3.1 came out, then
    they wanted the many of the built-in media capabilities in Windows XP (my
    father much preferred the interface in XP to that of Win3.1).
    Companies have different requirements, and the majority are more interested
    in reducing maintenance costs than adding pretty interfaces, but if this was
    the only factor then companies would never have upgraded to WinNT, but they
    did and it became an enormous commercial success. Remember that NT4 was the
    first version to have half-decent security and network handling with its
    vaguely Unix-like configuration, so they sacrificed disk space, money, and
    memory to install it.
    Arguing which is the best version of Windows is like arguing what kind and
    model of vehicle people should own. Each person has different requirements,
    and although you might argue that Ford don't _have_ to bring out a new
    model every year, and that the old ones are perfectly adequate and use less
    fuel than some of the new ones, people still want and buy the newer models.

    Cheers,
    Jason

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:bm12sustgfhcre0ehtahkbr8sqh6ekvbgm@4ax.com...
    > On 30 Oct 2002 16:13:52 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >What security features does Windows 98 have? Do you know what the

    maximum
    > >file size is for Windows 98? When you shut down a misbehaving process in
    > >Windows 98, how often do you end up just rebooting the machine? How long
    > >will Windows 98 run between reboots for a typical business user? How

    many
    > >programs can you run simultaneously on Windows 98 before performance

    degrades
    > >noticably? How do you administer 1000 Windows 98 machines from a central
    > >location? How does networking performance on 98 compare?

    >
    > All very fine points, no doubt. But they don't affect many on a
    > regular basis. I cannot remember the last time I had to reboot a BSOD
    > Win98SE PC, let alone a Win95a one. For much office work, the machines
    > just work, all day and every day. Developers who are pushing the
    > machines to the limit most of the time demand better reliability,
    > sure, and to that end I'm not using Windows at all now. But you can
    > cavil at the shortcomings in Windows 98 all you like. The fact is that
    > for hundreds of thousands of users, at work and in the home, it *is*
    > all they need. You ain't gonna sell "stability" to an ordinary
    > consumer for whom it isn't a problem.
    >
    > >Windows 98 is better than Windows 3.1, and it requires a lot less memory
    > >and CPU to run than Windows 2000 or Windows XP, but it is not nearly as

    robust
    > >or stable as 2000 or XP. Its base is still 16-bit code, and every call

    to
    > >a device driver has to chunk from 32 bits to 16 bits and back again. It
    > >does not do a good job of isolating processes, and it tends to leak

    memory
    > >and *gasp* resources, of which there is a very limited supply. Its

    virtual
    > >memory manager is antiquated.

    >
    > Okay. Stop a member of the public in the street (find one who is
    > running Windows 98 - you won't need to stop very many) and then try to
    > sell them a better "virtual memory manager". On the other hand, if you
    > tried to sell them on the idea that they could save money by not
    > upgrading willy nilly, they'd start listening to you! They might even
    > give you a quid for the tip.
    >
    > >Just because people are still using it, that does not mean it is the best
    > >thing available.

    >
    > Oh, and XP *is* the best thing available?!! Or just the best thing
    > until Microsoft bring out the *next* best thing?!!! What's the best
    > car available? Well, whatever. I can get by quite satisfactorily,
    > safely and cheaply with my little Italian job, 5,995 brand new. You
    > just don't NEED the biggest, boldest and brashest solution for every
    > problem! We ain't all Americans!
    >
    > > VB6 is still available, but that does not mean it is the
    > >best development tool... heh.

    >
    > Actually, it does. VB6 is the best tool there is for creating fast
    > business solutions. Microsoft says so on the box. Well, they used the
    > words "most productive" instead of "best", but the approbation has the
    > same weight.
    >
    > > Actually, let me do a little better than that.

    >
    > Better than what? You mean you're going to stop denigrating classic VB
    > for a change...?!!
    >
    > > People are still programming in VB4-16 for Windows 3.1. Yes, there
    > >are still 3.1 machines out there being used regularly.

    >
    > Well, there ya go! And do they complain about getting by on a two-bit
    > "virtual memory manager"? Of course not. They might moan a bit about
    > some limitations, but then find these are hardly intrusive for most
    > users. The only versions of Windows I would say absolutely sucked were
    > versions 1 and 2, the latter which I actually "used" on an AT box
    > about 12 years ago. So, yes, improvement is essential when there is a
    > lot to be improved. But once you get to a certain level, improving it
    > even more often ends up to be tinkering at the edges, adding bells and
    > whistles, and doing all of that purely to stay in the market place.
    > Meanwhile there is a plethora of products crying out for genuine
    > stability and trustworthiness. Moreover, it's not as though 2000 or XP
    > never crash. Of course they do! Can you say the same about Linux?
    > Linux is *renowned* for its stability and lack of viral attacks.
    >
    > >For business users, Windows 2000 is far better than Windows 98.

    >
    > But is it inferior to XP? If so, shouldn't you be urging all business
    > users to upgrade to XP pronto? If not, why have XP at all?
    >
    > > It runs much longer without crashing, and allows many programs to run

    at the same
    > >time without killing the performance of the machine.

    >
    > And how many ordinary users are going to stretch the performance that
    > much by running a word processor, e-mail, a spreadsheet and a browser?
    > Not a lot. So why would they ever want Windows 2000?
    >
    > >What are you, Mike? "Retro-Man," defender of all that is old and

    obsolete?
    >
    > I quite like the sound of Retro-Man! And defender sounds pretty good,
    > too. But defence of classic designs is not to render them old and
    > obsolete. Take the tin can. If it were the Microsoft tin can, you'd
    > need a special opener (licensed, of course) to get into it. It
    > wouldn't look anything like a can, but would have knobs and buttons
    > on, plus a funny ledge for storing photos of the kids. It would
    > probably just contain a voucher you'd take to a local can service to
    > obtain the actual contents (licensed). And as for owning it? Pah!
    > You'd only be renting the nutrition for the brief duration it passes
    > through your body (licensed).
    >
    > > Windows 98 - really!

    >
    > Yes, really! You said it. We should only ever buy WHAT WE NEED and no
    > more. That is similar to the ethos of eXtreme Programming after all,
    > so why should it be any different for any other kind of consumer or
    > goods purchased?
    >
    > MM




  7. #22
    elliferg Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >Yes, to replace the ones that have *worn out*! Some people do replace
    >their cars every year, but not that many in the UK, and I'll wager not
    >in the US either, given the current economic climate. Software,
    >however, never wears out. It gets broken by people continually
    >fiddling with it and fixing what ain't broke.
    >
    >MM



    mike,

    software *does* wear out. it gets stretched out of shape when new requirements
    get shoved into the bag. since refactoring is such a pain and not exciting
    at all, it is often neglected until the code is so fragile that it could
    shatter if you look at it too hard. the only fix is to start over (like
    M$ did with vb).
    if it was well modularized then you can fix pieces of it as needed instead
    of having to rewrite the whole thing.

    elli

  8. #23
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:59:02 +1100, "Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)"
    <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >.... Each person has different requirements,
    >and although you might argue that Ford don't _have_ to bring out a new
    >model every year, and that the old ones are perfectly adequate and use less
    >fuel than some of the new ones, people still want and buy the newer models.


    Yes, to replace the ones that have *worn out*! Some people do replace
    their cars every year, but not that many in the UK, and I'll wager not
    in the US either, given the current economic climate. Software,
    however, never wears out. It gets broken by people continually
    fiddling with it and fixing what ain't broke.

    MM

  9. #24
    Jason Sobell \(iGadget\) Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:nt33susdb4mlcimfcn8kii7qqjh398ljbi@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:59:02 +1100, "Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)"
    > <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >.... Each person has different requirements,
    > >and although you might argue that Ford don't _have_ to bring out a new
    > >model every year, and that the old ones are perfectly adequate and use

    less
    > >fuel than some of the new ones, people still want and buy the newer

    models.
    >
    > Yes, to replace the ones that have *worn out*! Some people do replace
    > their cars every year, but not that many in the UK, and I'll wager not
    > in the US either, given the current economic climate. Software,
    > however, never wears out. It gets broken by people continually
    > fiddling with it and fixing what ain't broke.


    But you miss the point of my comment. Ford do not just build new cars every
    year, they build new _models_ of their cars.
    If they followed your logic we would all be driving newly manufactured Model
    'T's

    Oh, and what's with all this 'In the UK' crap? What effect does the country
    have on this situation? Do people in the UK buy copies of Windows less often
    than over here in Australia?

    Cheers,
    Jason



  10. #25
    John Butler Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:bm12sustgfhcre0ehtahkbr8sqh6ekvbgm@4ax.com...
    > I cannot remember the last time I had to reboot a BSOD
    > Win98SE PC, let alone a Win95a one.


    Ha ha ha ha...you are joking right? Do you actually leave your 98 box on for
    days/weeks/months? If you did you'd quickly change your tune. You don't know
    what you're talking about. Part of my business is customer support, and
    Win9x support is a continuing thorn in our sides. As we upgrade and move our
    customers to Win2000/XP, their support call volume drops by 85% within days.
    Suddenly our support guys no longer get called out, to discover that the
    user had a few GPF's "about a week or two ago" and thought nothing of
    them...no their email doesn't work, Word is acting mysterious and everything
    is sloooow....gee, what a surprise.

    Your inexperience of the real world betrays you Mike. If you had to sweat
    supporting old MS OS crud, you'd (probably) be less misty-eyed and romantic
    about how wonderful it all was....and appreciative of the (vastly) increased
    stability and functionality (Security, management etc) feature that Win2K
    and XP bring to the business world.

    JohnB's Axiom:" The degree of enjoyment one gets out of the new improved
    widget, is directly proportional to the experience, pain and frustration
    gained testing the boundaries of the old widget."


    Rgds
    John Butler





  11. #26
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:39:08 -0000, "John Butler"
    <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >Ha ha ha ha...you are joking right? Do you actually leave your 98 box on for
    >days/weeks/months? If you did you'd quickly change your tune. You don't know
    >what you're talking about.


    Yes, I do. I have first-hand experience of hundreds of Windows 95
    machines that...simply...worked. Day in, day out. Sure, *occasionally*
    they go down. Often that is due to flaky hardware or users "fiddling".
    But you can't tell me that the whole world of Windows 9X machines is a
    world of woe such as the scenario you're painting! Everyday,
    everywhere I go, in shops, in banks, where I catch a glimpse of a
    Windows screen, I have YET TO SEE an XP one!!! Some of the ones I see
    are more than likely NT 4 W/S, but a goodly number are Windows 9X
    boxes. If what you say is representative of Windows 9X in general, how
    on earth do you suppose Windows 9X was such a massive success? The
    software hasn't "worn out", has it? Word 6 is what a lot of users are
    still using. So what has changed over the past few years that 9X
    machines are now 85% less stable?

    > Part of my business is customer support, and
    >Win9x support is a continuing thorn in our sides. As we upgrade and move our
    >customers to Win2000/XP, their support call volume drops by 85% within days.
    >Suddenly our support guys no longer get called out, to discover that the
    >user had a few GPF's "about a week or two ago" and thought nothing of
    >them...no their email doesn't work, Word is acting mysterious and everything
    >is sloooow....gee, what a surprise.


    Perhaps your 9X machines were not set up or configured properly. My
    experience of support staff is that they themselves can be incredibly
    flaky. (And they *always* know best!)

    >Your inexperience of the real world betrays you Mike. If you had to sweat
    >supporting old MS OS crud, you'd (probably) be less misty-eyed and romantic
    >about how wonderful it all was....and appreciative of the (vastly) increased
    >stability and functionality (Security, management etc) feature that Win2K
    >and XP bring to the business world.


    Well, you've certainly got a lot of 9X machines out there waiting for
    the magic touch of Win2K/XP/NextBigThing. You'll be back here in five
    years, won't you, trying to tell me how God-awful Win2K was, and thank
    the Lord for Windows LongJohnSilverComb!

    MM

  12. #27
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:49:50 +1100, "Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)"
    <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >But you miss the point of my comment. Ford do not just build new cars every
    >year, they build new _models_ of their cars.


    Yeah, every few years they bring out an updated version! Look how long
    the Ford Escort was in production! What about the VW Beetle? The Ford
    Transit? The Morris Minor? But Windows is different. Microsoft bring
    out a new version and then expect us to *dump* the previous version,
    that's the difference. Where do you see vehicle owners dumping their
    previous vehicles just to buy the latest model? Hey, and you say *I*
    missed the point!!!

    >If they followed your logic we would all be driving newly manufactured Model
    >'T's


    No, that is just you exaggerating because you know your argument is
    weak. My point (in case you may have missed it) is that you should get
    what you need and no more. Thus, Windows 2 was not good and an upgrade
    to Windows 3 was essential. The first version of Windows 3 was,
    surprise, surprise, not very stable, but 3.1 was. And so it went for
    years until Windows 95. With Win95 Microsoft, aware by then that they
    had not always produced the most stable software in the world, moved
    heaven and earth to produce a stable version 1. AND IT WAS! Windows 95
    was a friggin' marvellous piece of software. We were all blown away by
    it. And so for many users Windows 95 was the point where they could
    justifiably say, enough's enough.

    In any case, Model Ts don't sell too well because you can only buy
    black ones. They probably don't make them any longer.

    >Oh, and what's with all this 'In the UK' crap? What effect does the country
    >have on this situation? Do people in the UK buy copies of Windows less often
    >than over here in Australia?


    Different disposable incomes and levels of inferiority complex. Some
    citizens don't need to prove anything by surrounding themselves with
    macho status symbols. In America the message is being pushed at
    consumers all the time, from waking to sleeping, buy buy buy more more
    more. Whether you need it or not, just keep on buying! For God's sake
    buy, you dummies! Don't stop! Don't think! Just buy now, right this
    minute! Switch on the TV and buy any old crap. Just spend money in our
    direction. Go on! Do it! Now! It isn't quite so bad over here yet, but
    with Tony Blair sucking up to Dubya the whole time over Iraq, it won't
    be long before we become the 51st state.

    MM

  13. #28
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:49:50 +1100, "Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)"
    <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Oh, and what's with all this 'In the UK' crap? What effect does the country
    >have on this situation? Do people in the UK buy copies of Windows less often
    >than over here in Australia?


    Further news on organisations saying "no, thanks". See here:

    http://www.schoolnet.na/pr/msftrelease.html

    Especially take note of the paragraph: "In the UK alone over one
    million computers are buried in landfill sites every year - bespoiling
    the countryside and damaging the environment ... worldwide, 56 million
    computers are thrown away every year."

    And why are they thrown away? Because they're not powerful enough to
    run the Next Big Thing, which is likely to emanate from Redmond! Of
    course, *most* of those discarded PCs could run Linux, no problem, and
    still be totally usable.

    MM

  14. #29
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    In article <ufr4su47re932b9jjrs0g9i9008aij1t2e@4ax.com>,
    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

    [...]

    > Especially take note of the paragraph: "In the UK alone over one
    > million computers are buried in landfill sites every year -
    > bespoiling the countryside and damaging the environment ... worldwide,
    > 56 million computers are thrown away every year."


    > And why are they thrown away? Because they're not powerful enough
    > to run the Next Big Thing, which is likely to emanate from Redmond!


    Not really. The vast majority are discarded because something
    relatively minor (or major) has gone wrong with the hardware, and
    repair is either prohibitive (cheaper to buy a new system than to fix
    the old one) or not practically possible (replacement boards or
    modules no longer on the market).

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  15. #30
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: .Net... the saga...

    In article <3dc19b65$1@tnews.web.devx.com>,
    "elliferg" <fergusej@agedwards.com> writes:

    > Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


    > >Yes, to replace the ones that have *worn out*! Some people do
    > >replace their cars every year, but not that many in the UK, and
    > >I'll wager not in the US either, given the current economic climate.
    > >Software, however, never wears out. It gets broken by people
    > >continually fiddling with it and fixing what ain't broke.


    > >MM


    > mike,


    > software *does* wear out. it gets stretched out of shape when new
    > requirements get shoved into the bag.


    That is not even remotely the same thing as "wearing out". To use the
    current simile, it would be like declaring the family car "worn out"
    because you want to haul large appliances and furniture. And most
    commonly used software - including virtually all consumer software -
    is not subject to your requirement creep.

    > since refactoring is such a pain and not exciting at all, it is often
    > neglected until the code is so fragile that it could shatter if you
    > look at it too hard.


    Which is completely irrelevant to end users of consumer software and
    the like. The end users are doing absolutely NO recoding of the
    software (macros notwithstanding), and couldn't do so even if they
    wanted to. Again, to use the simile, you are confusing the car
    manufacturer's issues of "retooling" for production of a new model
    with the consumer's issue of continuing to use the family car.

    > the only fix is to start over (like M$ did with vb).


    The M$ VB decision was driven by marketing issues and corporate
    strategy rather than any such technical issues. According to the
    decision makers themselves.

    > if it was well modularized then you can fix pieces of it as needed
    > instead of having to rewrite the whole thing.


    Which is a good argument for MP (and against OOP, for reasons I have
    described elsewhere).

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center