Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Maybe a bit OT, maybe not.. in any case an interesting article
182 views
Skip to first unread message
Mazzini Alessandro
May 9, 2012, 7:44:36 AM5/9/12
to
JF Mezei
May 9, 2012, 2:14:01 PM5/9/12
to
Mazzini Alessandro wrote:
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/08/500-hp-apotheker/
Thanks. No susprises there, but it does paint a darker picture of the
board/execs than i had thought.
On the enterprise side, I think HP is being hurt by its dishonest
speeches about itanium. It should come clean with it. Everyone knows
IA64 is dead, but HP denies it and at the end, it is hurting HP. Their
BCS sales are dwindling at a high pace anyways.
> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/08/500-hp-apotheker/
Thanks. No susprises there, but it does paint a darker picture of the
board/execs than i had thought.
On the enterprise side, I think HP is being hurt by its dishonest
speeches about itanium. It should come clean with it. Everyone knows
IA64 is dead, but HP denies it and at the end, it is hurting HP. Their
BCS sales are dwindling at a high pace anyways.
Keith Parris
May 9, 2012, 4:09:07 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 12:14 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Everyone knows IA64 is dead, but HP denies it
What we know for certain at this point is that Intel has committed to
> Everyone knows IA64 is dead, but HP denies it
multiple generations of Itanium, including Poulson, Kittson, and
something called Kittson+. Itanium is no more dead at this point than
are SPARC or POWER (and maybe less dead than SPARC, were the truth to be
known); either of those chips' makers could decide to pull the plug at
any point.
JF Mezei
May 9, 2012, 4:36:30 PM5/9/12
to
Keith Parris wrote:
> What we know for certain at this point is that Intel has committed to
> multiple generations of Itanium, including Poulson, Kittson, and
> something called Kittson+.
No, we know that HP is willing to pay intel to keep IA64 on life support
> What we know for certain at this point is that Intel has committed to
> multiple generations of Itanium, including Poulson, Kittson, and
> something called Kittson+.
and slow paced development.
HP was under the illusion that it could hide the truth from customers
and pretend all was well with IA64. That has turned against them and
IA64 sales are tanking.
It would be logical for HP at this point to fess up about its plans to
drop HPUX, VMS and IA64 (and announce its intentions for NSK).
Continuing to pretend IA64 is safe and being actively developped reduces
HP's credibility greatly.
Whitman seems to be more pragmatic and if BCS loses too much money
beause of tanking IA64 sales, it would be in HP's best interests to
initiate the transition to 8086/Linux/Windows sooner rather than to try
to artificially stretch IA64's remain life.
Any transition costs a company customers. But if you start now, you
start off with a larger customer base. If you delay the transition, you
allow more and more customers to leave you so when you start the
tranistion, you start off with a smaller base of remaining customers.
MG
May 9, 2012, 7:06:43 PM5/9/12
to
On 9-5-2012 22:36, JF Mezei wrote:
> It would be logical for HP at this point to fess up about its plans to
> drop HPUX, VMS and IA64 (and announce its intentions for NSK).
> Continuing to pretend IA64 is safe and being actively developped reduces
> HP's credibility greatly.
It's not terribly logical for someone who said to have stopped using
> It would be logical for HP at this point to fess up about its plans to
> drop HPUX, VMS and IA64 (and announce its intentions for NSK).
> Continuing to pretend IA64 is safe and being actively developped reduces
> HP's credibility greatly.
VMS to continue to go on and on about it, that tends to reduce the
individual's credibility greatly.
> Whitman seems to be more pragmatic and if BCS loses too much money
> beause of tanking IA64 sales, it would be in HP's best interests to
> initiate the transition to 8086/Linux/Windows sooner rather than to try
> to artificially stretch IA64's remain life.
>
> Any transition costs a company customers. But if you start now, you
> start off with a larger customer base. If you delay the transition, you
> allow more and more customers to leave you so when you start the
> tranistion, you start off with a smaller base of remaining customers.
- MG
JF Mezei
May 9, 2012, 9:39:48 PM5/9/12
to
MG wrote:
> You do realize you wrote the above on comp.os.vms, right?
The experience in transitions from VAX to Alpha and then the Alphacide
> You do realize you wrote the above on comp.os.vms, right?
are very relevant to what will happen to VMS on IA64.
The information from the Oracle court documehts, when combined with
observations from HP and Intel's actiosn and statements (or lack
thereof) since 2004 also point to a very clear path. And that path does
not include vms.
So if you use any piece of software that is VMS specific (indexed files,
products such as All-in-1 etc) then you need to start thinking about
porting strategies because we all know that it takes time to make a
succesful port from VMS to some flavour of Unix.
Many porting attempts from VMS to Unix or Windows failed over the years.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
May 10, 2012, 1:24:33 AM5/10/12
to
> So if you use any piece of software that is VMS specific (indexed files,
> products such as All-in-1 etc) then you need to start thinking about
> porting strategies because we all know that it takes time to make a
> succesful port from VMS to some flavour of Unix.
While I agree that things are not exactly as they were 20 years ago, and
> products such as All-in-1 etc) then you need to start thinking about
> porting strategies because we all know that it takes time to make a
> succesful port from VMS to some flavour of Unix.
the court documents do show some interesting things, I still find it
interesting that I heard statements like that many times about 20 years
ago (around the time of the VAX-to-Alpha transition).
MG
May 10, 2012, 10:52:41 AM5/10/12
to
On 10-5-2012 3:39, JF Mezei wrote:
> Many porting attempts from VMS to Unix or Windows failed over the years.
Again, why do you even care? You said you stopped using VMS, months
> Many porting attempts from VMS to Unix or Windows failed over the years.
ago, didn't you?
- MG
David Froble
May 10, 2012, 1:58:41 PM5/10/12
to
Customers who may have a huge investment in their applications, which just might not be
portable.
And you imply that those customers will stick with HP on windoz or linux? Well, I've seen
a lot of stupid people, so, perhaps some might. But if such was done to me, I sure
wouldn't stick with such a vendor.
Would you?
And perhaps you do have portable, or somewhat, applications. Would you make the perhaps
non trivial effort to port them ... to a vendor who appears to be sinking on the good ship
itanic? Or would you perhaps see that IBM has been doing well, and choose a more secure
vendor?
Not everybody is interested in making a large investment in their applications every
couple of years.
Might I suggest that if HP is going to make an economic turn around, it will be with their
current customers, and that they will need to keep such customers satisfied ....
Bob Koehler
May 10, 2012, 3:12:36 PM5/10/12
to
In article <4faad551$0$24664$c3e8da3$e408...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Keith Parris wrote:
>
>> What we know for certain at this point is that Intel has committed to
>> multiple generations of Itanium, including Poulson, Kittson, and
>> something called Kittson+.
>
> No, we know that HP is willing to pay intel to keep IA64 on life support
> and slow paced development.
Those two paragraphs seem to be pointed in opposite directions, yet
> Keith Parris wrote:
>
>> What we know for certain at this point is that Intel has committed to
>> multiple generations of Itanium, including Poulson, Kittson, and
>> something called Kittson+.
>
> No, we know that HP is willing to pay intel to keep IA64 on life support
> and slow paced development.
actually contain content that does not disagree.
I don't care if the reason "Poulson, Kittson, and something called
Kittson+" are coming out of Intel is that "HP is willing to pay
intel". Somebody's got to pay for them, and that somebody works for
the company that thinks it will make a difference to his own bottom
line.
Can't find anything unusual about that. I pay the gas station to put
gas in my car for about the same reason.
JF Mezei
May 10, 2012, 4:15:54 PM5/10/12
to
To MG: Yes, I am moving away from VMS, no, the move is not complete.
And since VMS was the foundation for a large part of my life and since
the owners of VM'S have ruined my carreer, making me a dinosaur because
VMS skills are not marketable, I have full rights to remain interested
in what happens to it.
David Froble wrote:
> Ah, so you're saying that HP should abandon a large chunk of it's customers?
They have already made that decision when they decided to not port HP-UX
beyond IA64.
The big question is how big a chunk of customers they can migrate to
their 8086 based BCS solutio s that will rely on Linux/Windows.
> Customers who may have a huge investment in their applications, which just might not be
> portable.
Which is why they need to be given the most time to plan and port to a
new platform. Or agree to remain on the same hardware and OS version
which will likely be in maitenance mode for a long time (like VAX and
VAX-VMS 7.3) without capacity upgrades or new features. This only works
for legacy applications and "embedded" systems (for instance a computer
strongly tied to manufactiring robots/machinery).
HP have stated publicly many times that there are no plans to port HP-UX
beyond IA64. And some of the HP employees still associated with VMS will
always deny there are plans to port VMS to x86.
In the case of alphacide, there was a promise of EV7 and a process
shrink. The later promise was abandonned and they simply upped the clock
on EV7.
Right now, we are at the same stage with Kittson the last generation of
IA64s. (and kittson+ being the equivalent to the promise of a process
shrink for EV7).
The big difference is that in the case of Alpha, Compaq came out and
brutally announced it death. But with IA64, HP has been hiding its plans
to kill IA64 since 2007 when the formal decision to end development for
IA64 was made.
>
> And you imply that those customers will stick with HP on windoz or linux? Well, I've seen
> a lot of stupid people, so, perhaps some might. But if such was done to me, I sure
> wouldn't stick with such a vendor.
STicking with the vendor will depend on whether you trust that vendor,
and how much of a discount the vendor gives you to keep as as a customer.
The trust issue becomes difficult when it becomes public that HP has
lied to its customers about IA64 for years. So the longer tghe lie about
IA64, the less trust customers will have in HP.
And since VMS was the foundation for a large part of my life and since
the owners of VM'S have ruined my carreer, making me a dinosaur because
VMS skills are not marketable, I have full rights to remain interested
in what happens to it.
David Froble wrote:
> Ah, so you're saying that HP should abandon a large chunk of it's customers?
beyond IA64.
The big question is how big a chunk of customers they can migrate to
their 8086 based BCS solutio s that will rely on Linux/Windows.
> Customers who may have a huge investment in their applications, which just might not be
> portable.
new platform. Or agree to remain on the same hardware and OS version
which will likely be in maitenance mode for a long time (like VAX and
VAX-VMS 7.3) without capacity upgrades or new features. This only works
for legacy applications and "embedded" systems (for instance a computer
strongly tied to manufactiring robots/machinery).
HP have stated publicly many times that there are no plans to port HP-UX
beyond IA64. And some of the HP employees still associated with VMS will
always deny there are plans to port VMS to x86.
In the case of alphacide, there was a promise of EV7 and a process
shrink. The later promise was abandonned and they simply upped the clock
on EV7.
Right now, we are at the same stage with Kittson the last generation of
IA64s. (and kittson+ being the equivalent to the promise of a process
shrink for EV7).
The big difference is that in the case of Alpha, Compaq came out and
brutally announced it death. But with IA64, HP has been hiding its plans
to kill IA64 since 2007 when the formal decision to end development for
IA64 was made.
>
> And you imply that those customers will stick with HP on windoz or linux? Well, I've seen
> a lot of stupid people, so, perhaps some might. But if such was done to me, I sure
> wouldn't stick with such a vendor.
and how much of a discount the vendor gives you to keep as as a customer.
The trust issue becomes difficult when it becomes public that HP has
lied to its customers about IA64 for years. So the longer tghe lie about
IA64, the less trust customers will have in HP.
Arne Vajhøj
May 12, 2012, 9:28:25 PM5/12/12
to
And the software vendors are dropping the platform.
It will live for some years.
But the direction seems very much downwards.
I agree about SPARC. Some day in the not so far out future Larry
will look at the cost and decide to ditch SPARC and Solaris
for x86-64 and Linux.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 12, 2012, 9:33:23 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/9/2012 9:39 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> The information from the Oracle court documehts, when combined with
> observations from HP and Intel's actiosn and statements (or lack
> thereof) since 2004 also point to a very clear path. And that path does
> not include vms.
The Oracle court documents provided some material that
> The information from the Oracle court documehts, when combined with
> observations from HP and Intel's actiosn and statements (or lack
> thereof) since 2004 also point to a very clear path. And that path does
> not include vms.
was perfect for creating speculation son the internet
using terms like "life support", "hide the truth" etc..
But that type of speculations does not really mean anything.
What means something is sales numbers and support from
software vendors. And those did not look good before
and do not look good after the entertainment in court.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 12, 2012, 9:35:01 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/9/2012 9:39 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> So if you use any piece of software that is VMS specific (indexed files,
> products such as All-in-1 etc) then you need to start thinking about
> porting strategies because we all know that it takes time to make a
> succesful port from VMS to some flavour of Unix.
I doubt there are many ALLIN1 users left.
> products such as All-in-1 etc) then you need to start thinking about
> porting strategies because we all know that it takes time to make a
> succesful port from VMS to some flavour of Unix.
Index sequential files can be replaced.
> Many porting attempts from VMS to Unix or Windows failed over the years.
combinations of X and Y.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 12, 2012, 9:38:00 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/10/2012 4:15 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> To MG: Yes, I am moving away from VMS, no, the move is not complete.
> And since VMS was the foundation for a large part of my life and since
> the owners of VM'S have ruined my carreer, making me a dinosaur because
> VMS skills are not marketable, I have full rights to remain interested
> in what happens to it.
DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
> To MG: Yes, I am moving away from VMS, no, the move is not complete.
> And since VMS was the foundation for a large part of my life and since
> the owners of VM'S have ruined my carreer, making me a dinosaur because
> VMS skills are not marketable, I have full rights to remain interested
> in what happens to it.
The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
life did.
It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
the time. And if one does not evolve, then ones career is toast.
Arne
Michael Kraemer
May 13, 2012, 6:20:56 AM5/13/12
to
Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>
> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>
> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
> life did.
And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
> the time.
So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>
> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>
> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
> life did.
> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
> the time.
Paul Sture
May 13, 2012, 9:13:11 AM5/13/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:20:56 +0200, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>
>
>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>
>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach in the
>> IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for life did.
>
> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
:-)
> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>
>
>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>
>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach in the
>> IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for life did.
>
> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
Go back another 7 years and sticking with IBM was advice I was given.
Go back 22 years instead and getting into Unix and Sun was the advice,
based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
HP had already put me off that by giving a colleague an early version of
"The Unix-Haters Handbook" as part of a Unix course.
>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all the time.
>
> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
--
Paul Sture
Single Stage to Orbit
May 13, 2012, 9:54:31 AM5/13/12
to
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 21:28 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> I agree about SPARC. Some day in the not so far out future Larry
> will look at the cost and decide to ditch SPARC and Solaris
> for x86-64 and Linux.
I don't think he'll ditch Solaris on the x86 platform though.
> I agree about SPARC. Some day in the not so far out future Larry
> will look at the cost and decide to ditch SPARC and Solaris
> for x86-64 and Linux.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens
Michael Kraemer
May 13, 2012, 10:25:01 AM5/13/12
to
Paul Sture schrieb:
>
> :-)
>
> Go back another 7 years and sticking with IBM was advice I was given.
Which wasn't such a bad device after all.
Their mainframe business is still alive and well,
it seems.
> Go back 22 years instead and getting into Unix and Sun was the advice,
> based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
And this one wasn't too bad too.
If you look at it, Unix is just everywhere,
in one flavour or another.
>
> :-)
>
> Go back another 7 years and sticking with IBM was advice I was given.
Their mainframe business is still alive and well,
it seems.
> Go back 22 years instead and getting into Unix and Sun was the advice,
> based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
If you look at it, Unix is just everywhere,
in one flavour or another.
Richard B. Gilbert
May 13, 2012, 12:23:35 PM5/13/12
to
I'm not going to hold my breath!
David Froble
May 13, 2012, 4:51:23 PM5/13/12
to
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Technologies come and technologies go all
> the time.
This says more than one might first think about.
> Technologies come and technologies go all
> the time.
Early computers had some uses, and were used accordingly. They really were way too big,
heavy, non-portable, and expensive for many uses.
Then along came the PC. Did the original uses for computers go away? No, for the most
part they did not. However, the lesser (Ok, this is highly objective, but let's not get
into that) uses that many PCs were used for, from a quantity perspective, greatly
overshadowed the usage of earlier computers. So much that the overall market was driven
by the PCs. Total dollar sales greatly favored the PCs.
Then along comes notebooks. Turns out those PC users, for the most part, didn't really
want that clunky desktop system. But this was more some minituration than a new type of
computer. Regardless, volume sales migrated to the notebooks.
Lately we are inundated with tablet computers and smart phones. Turns out most of the
users didn't even want the notebooks.
The problem is, some of the uses of the early computers still exist. But the systems are
a very small part of the total market. The same seems to be happening to the PCs.
Regardless of the total market, the small parts are still essential to some users,
however, they have less and less attention from the vendors.
What makes it worse is, customers want a mainframe for the price of an Ipod, and feel
that's what they should get. Well, I want a lot of things too, but get very few of them.
So if you have some of the "traditional" needs for a computer system, you're a very small
market, and the vendors tell you to put up with windoz and linux and go away and stop
bothering them, they want to sell more tablet computers.
From what I can see, the only company still listening to the users of large systems is
IBM. HP doesn't seem to really care. Not sure who else is left.
Did everybody that used VMS back in the "day" really need everything VMS did for them?
No, and some were always going to move to smaller and cheaper systems. Word processing
and spreadsheets and such were never a good fit for VMS. But there were many good fits
for VMS. Could VMS have retained more market share than they did? I for one think they
could have, if they would have changed with the times and market. DEC couldn't and didn't
and is no longer with us. Compaq was never an option. HP ended up with VMS, but not
because they wanted it.
VAXman-
May 13, 2012, 7:12:30 PM5/13/12
to
In article <0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
Jan-Erik Soderholm
May 13, 2012, 7:38:03 PM5/13/12
to
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote 2012-05-14 01:12:
> In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>>
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free;
Probably hard to find anyone willing to pay to marketing it,
> In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>>
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free;
when there is nothing in return to pay for it (the marketing).
> so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
belive it is what we want and need, so we buy it.
Arne Vajhøj
May 13, 2012, 9:22:27 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 9:54 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 21:28 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I agree about SPARC. Some day in the not so far out future Larry
>> will look at the cost and decide to ditch SPARC and Solaris
>> for x86-64 and Linux.
>
> I don't think he'll ditch Solaris on the x86 platform though.
Solaris OS is cheaper than SPARC HW, so Solaris may be allowed
> On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 21:28 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I agree about SPARC. Some day in the not so far out future Larry
>> will look at the cost and decide to ditch SPARC and Solaris
>> for x86-64 and Linux.
>
> I don't think he'll ditch Solaris on the x86 platform though.
to stay for a decade more than SPARC.
But eventually it will also go away.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 13, 2012, 9:25:50 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>
>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>> life did.
>
> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
That would have been 15 years ago not 25.
>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>
>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>> life did.
>
> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
In that case he would have some years left.
But eventually Windows will die as well.
>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>> the time.
>
> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
Companies can stay around as long as they can keep being in
on the new technologies.
Hard to say if MS will be able to do that. They missed both
internet and smartphones.
Arne
glen herrmannsfeldt
May 13, 2012, 9:26:42 PM5/13/12
to
David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Technologies come and technologies go all the time.
> This says more than one might first think about.
> Early computers had some uses, and were used accordingly.
> They really were way too big, heavy, non-portable, and expensive
> for many uses.
> Then along came the PC. Did the original uses for computers
> go away? No, for the most part they did not. However,
> the lesser (Ok, this is highly objective, but let's not get
> into that) uses that many PCs were used for, from a quantity
> perspective, greatly overshadowed the usage of earlier computers.
Yes. Well, many of those uses increased in size as prices dropped.
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Technologies come and technologies go all the time.
> This says more than one might first think about.
> Early computers had some uses, and were used accordingly.
> They really were way too big, heavy, non-portable, and expensive
> for many uses.
> Then along came the PC. Did the original uses for computers
> go away? No, for the most part they did not. However,
> the lesser (Ok, this is highly objective, but let's not get
> into that) uses that many PCs were used for, from a quantity
> perspective, greatly overshadowed the usage of earlier computers.
One use for big computers for many years was scientific computing.
(snip)
> The problem is, some of the uses of the early computers still
> exist. But the systems are a very small part of the total market.
work just fine. Much of scientific computing has enjoyed the
benefit of cheap fast machines that people buy to run Outlook
or Excel even when a slower machine would do just fine.
VAX/VMS was popular for scientific computing for many years,
more affordable than an IBM/370, but often big and fast enough
to do the job. (Even if it takes a day or two.)
> The same seems to be happening to the PCs. Regardless of the
> total market, the small parts are still essential to some users,
> however, they have less and less attention from the vendors.
for the masses. The really really high end looks for machines
like those from Cray, but a very large fraction of scientific
computing is done on more ordinary machines.
> What makes it worse is, customers want a mainframe for the price
> of an Ipod, and feel that's what they should get. Well,
> I want a lot of things too, but get very few of them.
business computing where uptime and reliability are very
important. That can be done on a farm of smaller machines, too.
> So if you have some of the "traditional" needs for a computer
> system, you're a very small market, and the vendors tell you
> to put up with windoz and linux and go away and stop
> bothering them, they want to sell more tablet computers.
(at least for the hardware), but not quite as fast.
> From what I can see, the only company still listening to the
> users of large systems is IBM. HP doesn't seem to really
> care. Not sure who else is left.
Maybe it still is.
-- glen
Arne Vajhøj
May 13, 2012, 9:28:51 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 10:25 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> Paul Sture schrieb:
It is certainly more widely used than VMS.
But the demand for people does not look that good (actually
it may look good short term as a lot of mainframe people will
retire soon).
>> Go back 22 years instead and getting into Unix and Sun was the advice,
>> based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
>
> And this one wasn't too bad too.
> If you look at it, Unix is just everywhere,
> in one flavour or another.
Also dropping. Exactly same as VMS just 10-15 years delayed.
Arne
> Paul Sture schrieb:
>> Go back another 7 years and sticking with IBM was advice I was given.
>
> Which wasn't such a bad device after all.
> Their mainframe business is still alive and well,
> it seems.
It is still alive.
>
> Which wasn't such a bad device after all.
> Their mainframe business is still alive and well,
> it seems.
It is certainly more widely used than VMS.
But the demand for people does not look that good (actually
it may look good short term as a lot of mainframe people will
retire soon).
>> Go back 22 years instead and getting into Unix and Sun was the advice,
>> based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
>
> And this one wasn't too bad too.
> If you look at it, Unix is just everywhere,
> in one flavour or another.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 13, 2012, 9:30:21 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 7:12 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>>
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
Most people like it and are willing to pay for it.
> In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>>
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
Arne
JF Mezei
May 13, 2012, 9:39:00 PM5/13/12
to
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Solaris OS is cheaper than SPARC HW, so Solaris may be allowed
> to stay for a decade more than SPARC.
A decade is a very long time in IT. Yes, you can safely bet that
> Solaris OS is cheaper than SPARC HW, so Solaris may be allowed
> to stay for a decade more than SPARC.
support for it will continue for a decade. But that does not mean that
it will remain mainstream.
On the other hand, should Oracle come out with a killer app that is only
available on Solaris, you could see Solaris become "industry standard"
for servers. (Same applies to IBM with its AIX or MVS).
Right now, it appears that Linux will be king for servers. But that
doesn't mean it will be so 10 years from now.
Arne Vajhøj
May 13, 2012, 9:40:16 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 4:51 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Did everybody that used VMS back in the "day" really need everything VMS
> did for them? No, and some were always going to move to smaller and
> cheaper systems. Word processing and spreadsheets and such were never a
> good fit for VMS. But there were many good fits for VMS. Could VMS have
> retained more market share than they did? I for one think they could
> have, if they would have changed with the times and market. DEC couldn't
> and didn't and is no longer with us. Compaq was never an option. HP
> ended up with VMS, but not because they wanted it.
One thing is the changes in technology.
> Did everybody that used VMS back in the "day" really need everything VMS
> did for them? No, and some were always going to move to smaller and
> cheaper systems. Word processing and spreadsheets and such were never a
> good fit for VMS. But there were many good fits for VMS. Could VMS have
> retained more market share than they did? I for one think they could
> have, if they would have changed with the times and market. DEC couldn't
> and didn't and is no longer with us. Compaq was never an option. HP
> ended up with VMS, but not because they wanted it.
But adopting to those changes can be made elegant or clumsy.
I think DEC/CPQ/HP could have done a lot better.
I believe that:
- keeping products like RDB inhouse
- continue to invest in new features (successors to Spiralog,
Snapshot, Galaxy etc.)
- spend some marketing dollars
- not have tried so hard making customers migrate
(ALLIN1 sales->Exchange seats maintenance, VMS only
being for database tier, Tru64 push and other disasters)
could have made DEC/CPQ/HP more money than their chosen
strategy.
It would not make miracles. But looking at something like
i aka OS/400 sales, then it seems realistic that VMS with
little extra investment could have made significant money
for a decade more.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 13, 2012, 9:44:16 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 9:39 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Solaris OS is cheaper than SPARC HW, so Solaris may be allowed
>> to stay for a decade more than SPARC.
>
> A decade is a very long time in IT. Yes, you can safely bet that
> support for it will continue for a decade. But that does not mean that
> it will remain mainstream.
Absolutely true.
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Solaris OS is cheaper than SPARC HW, so Solaris may be allowed
>> to stay for a decade more than SPARC.
>
> A decade is a very long time in IT. Yes, you can safely bet that
> support for it will continue for a decade. But that does not mean that
> it will remain mainstream.
> On the other hand, should Oracle come out with a killer app that is only
> available on Solaris, you could see Solaris become "industry standard"
> for servers. (Same applies to IBM with its AIX or MVS).
If Oracle did not then IBM would do it.
> Right now, it appears that Linux will be king for servers. But that
> doesn't mean it will be so 10 years from now.
to expect them to be huge in 10 years.
But Linux could certainly start the slow decline within
the next 10 years.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 13, 2012, 9:49:28 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 9:26 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Sun SPARC/Solaris used to be pretty popular for web servers.
> Maybe it still is.
Solaris ruled the web around the .COM bubble.
> Sun SPARC/Solaris used to be pretty popular for web servers.
> Maybe it still is.
But not today.
http://www.unixmen.com/understanding-linux-market-share-for-march/
Linux For Web Servers
<quote>
Linux has a market share of 63.7%, while windows has 33.7% and BSD too
at a good 2.4%, Solaris is 0.1%.
</quote>
http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/operating_system/all
http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-unix/all/all
have similar numbers for Solaris.
Arne
Nomen Nescio
May 14, 2012, 2:35:09 AM5/14/12
to
glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> It seems to me that the demand for mainframes now is for
> business computing where uptime and reliability are very
> important. That can be done on a farm of smaller machines, too.
Yes, Tandem and other company I forgot the name of (Stratus?) proved uptime
> It seems to me that the demand for mainframes now is for
> business computing where uptime and reliability are very
> important. That can be done on a farm of smaller machines, too.
can be acheived with clustering. However they didn't have the other
mainframe instrinsics to be successful. And they couldn't fight against the
galaxy of legacy mainframe code that only runs on a mainframe.
> > From what I can see, the only company still listening to the
> > users of large systems is IBM. HP doesn't seem to really
> > care. Not sure who else is left.
Unlike Whoracle and HP they're not suicidal. They're homicidal though.
>
> Sun SPARC/Solaris used to be pretty popular for web servers.
> Maybe it still is.
ebay. People are dumping perfectly good SPARCware by the metric tonne and
pallet load. Most webservers today seem to be running Windows or FreeBSD on
Intel commodity crapware. I'm shorting SPARC futures...
Nomen Nescio
May 14, 2012, 3:07:16 AM5/14/12
to
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
Because there is a company who pays people to sit on the phone and accept
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
the blame (or tell you to reboot). So-called "free software" whether free or
just forcible open source may or may not be good, but if you don't have
somebody to call at 2:00 A.M. on Saturday night you can't give it away to
enterprises.
Paul Sture
May 14, 2012, 4:22:10 AM5/14/12
to
probably wouldn't have believed it.
--
Paul Sture
Paul Sture
May 14, 2012, 5:51:09 AM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012 21:28:51 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 10:25 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>> Paul Sture schrieb:
>>> Go back another 7 years and sticking with IBM was advice I was given.
>>
>> Which wasn't such a bad device after all. Their mainframe business is
>> still alive and well, it seems.
>
> It is still alive.
>
> It is certainly more widely used than VMS.
>
> But the demand for people does not look that good (actually it may look
> good short term as a lot of mainframe people will retire soon).
Except if I look back to what happened in the run up to Y2K, IBM shops
> On 5/13/2012 10:25 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>> Paul Sture schrieb:
>>> Go back another 7 years and sticking with IBM was advice I was given.
>>
>> Which wasn't such a bad device after all. Their mainframe business is
>> still alive and well, it seems.
>
> It is still alive.
>
> It is certainly more widely used than VMS.
>
> But the demand for people does not look that good (actually it may look
> good short term as a lot of mainframe people will retire soon).
were allegedly crying out for COBOL expertise, but if you tried applying
for any of those jobs they wanted someone with up to date experience.
>>> Go back 22 years instead and getting into Unix and Sun was the advice,
>>> based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
>>
>> And this one wasn't too bad too.
>> If you look at it, Unix is just everywhere, in one flavour or another.
>
> Also dropping. Exactly same as VMS just 10-15 years delayed.
>
--
Paul Sture
Michael Kraemer
May 14, 2012, 6:47:19 AM5/14/12
to
In article <iur689-...@news.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <pa...@sture.ch> writes:
>
> But in neither case did I have a crystal ball handy, and even if I had, I
> probably wouldn't have believed it.
Surely the mainframe survival was a bit of a surprise,
>
> But in neither case did I have a crystal ball handy, and even if I had, I
> probably wouldn't have believed it.
but the success of Unix[oids] was quite predictable.
Mazzini Alessandro
May 14, 2012, 8:04:42 AM5/14/12
to
>>
>> Sun SPARC/Solaris used to be pretty popular for web servers.
>> Maybe it still is.
>
> It is becoming dramatically less popular thanks to Larry. Have a look on
> ebay. People are dumping perfectly good SPARCware by the metric tonne and
> pallet load. Most webservers today seem to be running Windows or FreeBSD
> on
> Intel commodity crapware. I'm shorting SPARC futures...
>
Bit deviating from the topic but, given that I admit my total ignorance
>> Sun SPARC/Solaris used to be pretty popular for web servers.
>> Maybe it still is.
>
> It is becoming dramatically less popular thanks to Larry. Have a look on
> ebay. People are dumping perfectly good SPARCware by the metric tonne and
> pallet load. Most webservers today seem to be running Windows or FreeBSD
> on
> Intel commodity crapware. I'm shorting SPARC futures...
>
about the Sparc current situation... why is it becoming dramatically less
popular after being purchased by Oracle ?
Nomen Nescio
May 14, 2012, 9:21:42 AM5/14/12
to
m.kr...@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
> In article <iur689-...@news.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <pa...@sture.ch> writes:
>
> >
> > But in neither case did I have a crystal ball handy, and even if I had, I
> > probably wouldn't have believed it.
>
> Surely the mainframe survival was a bit of a surprise,
Why? Mainframes have been around before there was a Linux and they have a
> In article <iur689-...@news.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <pa...@sture.ch> writes:
>
> >
> > But in neither case did I have a crystal ball handy, and even if I had, I
> > probably wouldn't have believed it.
>
> Surely the mainframe survival was a bit of a surprise,
niche that neither UNIX nor anything else has ever been able to penetrate.
> but the success of Unix[oids] was quite predictable.
you're going to see some new things.
Bob Koehler
May 14, 2012, 9:35:05 AM5/14/12
to
In article <joo1u9$emd$1...@solani.org>, Michael Kraemer <M.Kr...@gsi.de> writes:
>
> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>
M$ is slipping. But not very fast ,and they have a long way to go.
>
> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>
The day will come.
Nomen Nescio
May 14, 2012, 10:23:00 AM5/14/12
to
really really hates IBM for selling tons of DB2 and AIX and POWER, but most
of all AIX dammit! And mainframes cost more than Larry's biggest baddest
Whoracle Exaworld-Is-Mine Appliance. And that causes somebody to fail the
biggest pair test and he hates that more than anything.
So he decided to kill about 75% or more of existing SPARC servers by EOL'ing
them to death (everything from sun4v and earlier) and only sell THE BIG ONES
you need three guys and a pallet jack to move. You want to pay a hundred
grand? Buy a Whoracle x86 server and run Linux ya cheap bastid and say thank
you for selling it to me! We're not worthy!
You want to be a real man? Let's see if you can buy a Whoracle SPARC server
and pay a hundred grand (or more likely 200-250) just for the software
licensing. Solaris, yeah baby YEAH! SHOW ME THE MONEY! He thinks he can make
a business selling only to premium customers like IBM did. But he made one
big mistake. IBM sells AIX and POWER affordably and they've been cleaning
Larry's clock something terrible even before Sun was Larry. It's the
mainframes they can sell like they were made out of gold. The midrange
server market doesn't work that way. Hello Larry, goodbye Solaris and
SPARC.
Richard B. Gilbert
May 14, 2012, 12:48:31 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/13/2012 7:12 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>>
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>>
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
Processor, and Database.
Then there is the fourth "Killer App"! Turbo-Tax will never make the
"ides of April" bearable but it beats hell out of wrestling with Form
1040 Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F. . . . by hand and then Form NJ1040, and
schedules. . . .
VAXman-
May 14, 2012, 1:06:10 PM5/14/12
to
In article <tr6dndBwLpjxqizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>{...snip...}
>Then there is the fourth "Killer App"! Turbo-Tax will never make the
>"ides of April" bearable but it beats hell out of wrestling with Form
>1040 Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F. . . . by hand and then Form NJ1040, and
>schedules. . . .
I don't think Turbo-Tax is M$; in fact, I know it isn't because it would
NOT be installed on any system in my home if it was!
>{...snip...}
>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>
>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>
>Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>.. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>
>You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>Processor, and Database.
I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
>
>You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>Processor, and Database.
>Then there is the fourth "Killer App"! Turbo-Tax will never make the
>"ides of April" bearable but it beats hell out of wrestling with Form
>1040 Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F. . . . by hand and then Form NJ1040, and
>schedules. . . .
NOT be installed on any system in my home if it was!
Richard B. Gilbert
May 14, 2012, 1:15:30 PM5/14/12
to
software. Sun's game plan was to make money on support. Oracle
did not continue Sun's policy.
Let them wallow in the mess they've mad. I've got licensed copies of
Solaris 8, 9, and 10 and OLD Sun SPARC hardware: Ultra 5 and Ultra 10
workstations. They were my home laboratory! I could break things
because I could fix them. People would have gotten upset of I broke
things at work. ;-)
R.I.P. Sun
David Froble
May 14, 2012, 2:07:12 PM5/14/12
to
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 4:51 PM, David Froble wrote:
>> Did everybody that used VMS back in the "day" really need everything VMS
>> did for them? No, and some were always going to move to smaller and
>> cheaper systems. Word processing and spreadsheets and such were never a
>> good fit for VMS. But there were many good fits for VMS. Could VMS have
>> retained more market share than they did? I for one think they could
>> have, if they would have changed with the times and market. DEC couldn't
>> and didn't and is no longer with us. Compaq was never an option. HP
>> ended up with VMS, but not because they wanted it.
>
> One thing is the changes in technology.
>
> But adopting to those changes can be made elegant or clumsy.
>
> I think DEC/CPQ/HP could have done a lot better.
DEC was basically suicidal. They tried to embrace Windoz. That was the competition
> On 5/13/2012 4:51 PM, David Froble wrote:
>> Did everybody that used VMS back in the "day" really need everything VMS
>> did for them? No, and some were always going to move to smaller and
>> cheaper systems. Word processing and spreadsheets and such were never a
>> good fit for VMS. But there were many good fits for VMS. Could VMS have
>> retained more market share than they did? I for one think they could
>> have, if they would have changed with the times and market. DEC couldn't
>> and didn't and is no longer with us. Compaq was never an option. HP
>> ended up with VMS, but not because they wanted it.
>
> One thing is the changes in technology.
>
> But adopting to those changes can be made elegant or clumsy.
>
> I think DEC/CPQ/HP could have done a lot better.
(enemy) and MS sure didn't do a damn thing for DEC. A bad one way street. Bad management.
> I believe that:
> - keeping products like RDB inhouse
dealing with Larry you better watch your back and be wearing body armor.
A better and cheaper alternative to Oracle would have appealed to many customers. They
could have even ported RDB to other environments, and perhaps put some nails in Larry's
coffin.
> - continue to invest in new features (successors to Spiralog,
> Snapshot, Galaxy etc.)
have been not so good to waste money on.
> - spend some marketing dollars
> - not have tried so hard making customers migrate
> (ALLIN1 sales->Exchange seats maintenance, VMS only
> being for database tier, Tru64 push and other disasters)
> could have made DEC/CPQ/HP more money than their chosen
> strategy.
their own products? VMS is good at some things. Not so good at others. Thing is, VMS is
good in areas that make some good profits. DEC didn't seem to realize this.
> It would not make miracles. But looking at something like
> i aka OS/400 sales, then it seems realistic that VMS with
> little extra investment could have made significant money
> for a decade more.
going to grow as the PC market did. So what? Do what you can. Instead of reinforcing
themselves where they were successful, they chased after what they could never have.
Sometimes people overlook what is right under their noses. As one example, the rush to
Alpha. Our company's software continued to run on VAX long after the Alpha came out. It
was enough. Codis has basically taken over a specific market, distributors in the small
outdoor power equipment industry. Even today, it could run on 32 bit VAX, if newer
systems with enough speed were available. As it is, only one of our larger (and frugal)
customers is still running on Alpha. Consider how old that system is. I'm not saying
that a computer architecture could have survived with only us as customers, nor so I think
we're alone. This is what DEC overlooked, those who could and would use their existing
products, if only they had continued development and availability.
David Froble
May 14, 2012, 2:26:35 PM5/14/12
to
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
There is a couple of things I can say about windoz ....
> In article <0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>
>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>
>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>> life did.
>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>
>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>> the time.
>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>
>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>
> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>
> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
Pros:
It is a decent user interface for a desktop system.
Some of their software can be useful. I've implemented several systems on Windoz using
Visual Basic 6. The systems work, they do what is needed, and the customers seem to be
satisfied. In at least one case they were bigots who seemed to have a dislike for VMS,
VAX, and Compaq. Their money spends as well as anyone elses.
Cons:
The pros list was short :-)
I cannot express how much I missed a DLM and logical names. Windows causes things to be
much more labor intensive and much less flexible. I even considered implementing a lock
manager, but that would have been more work than just using the crude tools available.
If Microsoft would just let us have something and not keep changing it, I'd be much
happier. I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro on my primary user interface. I've had to
put XP on another because I needed some things that would not run on 2000. But the total
garbage that they call Vista, well, what worse can I call it than garbage. Windoz 7 is a
bit better, but not much. One of the problems is, windoz thinks it knows better than the
user does. Perhaps in some cases, but not all, and MS doesn't seem to care about users
who actually know what they need to do. I'd prefer not having to learn a whole new user
environment every couple of years.
Other:
There is a rather large number of offerings of tools for a windoz environment. In some
cases they are much better then their target environment. One example is Socket Tools
from Catalyst Software. Easy to use, consistent, much better than the MS stuff, and makes
the HP TCP/IP and SSL seem totally worthless. With a larger market you can get some good
tools. With a smaller market, you don't.
Richard B. Gilbert
May 14, 2012, 2:29:04 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 1:06 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<tr6dndBwLpjxqizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> {...snip...}
>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>
>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>
>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>> Processor, and Database.
>
> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
>
>
>
>> Then there is the fourth "Killer App"! Turbo-Tax will never make the
>> "ides of April" bearable but it beats hell out of wrestling with Form
>> 1040 Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F. . . . by hand and then Form NJ1040, and
>> schedules. . . .
>
> I don't think Turbo-Tax is M$; in fact, I know it isn't because it would
> NOT be installed on any system in my home if it was!
Turbo-Tax is not an MS product. It's a product of "Intuit". It does
> In article<tr6dndBwLpjxqizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> {...snip...}
>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>
>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>
>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>> Processor, and Database.
>
> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
>
>
>
>> Then there is the fourth "Killer App"! Turbo-Tax will never make the
>> "ides of April" bearable but it beats hell out of wrestling with Form
>> 1040 Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F. . . . by hand and then Form NJ1040, and
>> schedules. . . .
>
> I don't think Turbo-Tax is M$; in fact, I know it isn't because it would
> NOT be installed on any system in my home if it was!
require Windows so I suppose you will have to "roll your own" to run
under VMS.
John Wallace
May 14, 2012, 2:35:27 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 5:48 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
wrote:
I don't know if you remember, or were aware at the time, but windows
were around before Windows(r). So were spreadsheets, word processors
and databases.
None of those were Microsoft's most significant invention. Microsoft's
most significant invention was probably not Windows, it was probably
semi-compulsory volume licencing deals with PC manufacturers,
culminating in the "Windows tax" of the last decade or two, and just
as importantly, building a commercially-motivated ecosystem around
things like that.
I don't know where Nomen Nescio is, but in this part of the world
there are already Linux-centric folk willing to be paid to get phone
calls at 2am in the morning, in sectors varying from SME to corporate.
Customers of these folk probably get better answers than the vast
majority of MS customers ever get from a support call. Also, it'll be
a long time before Linux users are vulnerable to scamsters like Nerd
Support, one of whose reps spamcalled me the other day and who was
puzzled when I asked him where the Start menu he wanted me to click on
"to clear the errors he'd seen on my computer" could be found on an
Ubuntu computer (I don't use Ubuntu but wondered if he might at least
have heard of it and realise his MS-dependent scam was doomed to
failure).
Bob's assertion earlier on that MS will be around for a long time
rather depends on the continued success of the ecosystem that Bill
built.
MS's dependence on computer vendors, x86 hardware, and the general
ecosystem that Bill built could also be a contributor to their
downfall, because these players are all interlinked, and once enough
of them realise there is more money to be made without MS than there
is to be made with MS, there is an interesting risk of a domino
effect. It may or may not happen soon, but the phone market, where the
commercial deals with manufacturers have never favoured MS, is an
obvious example of how MS struggle outside their comfort zone. As are
datacentres, "the cloud", and probably anything which isn't a
combination of Wintel desktop inextricably linked by things like MS-
proprietary authentication mechanisms with Wintel server. That sector
has been a big part of the market for a long time. Before that, VMS
was a big part of the market for a long time. All things must pass.
Have a lot of fun.
wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 7:12 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLSnZ2dnUVZ_qedn...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilber...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>
were around before Windows(r). So were spreadsheets, word processors
and databases.
None of those were Microsoft's most significant invention. Microsoft's
most significant invention was probably not Windows, it was probably
semi-compulsory volume licencing deals with PC manufacturers,
culminating in the "Windows tax" of the last decade or two, and just
as importantly, building a commercially-motivated ecosystem around
things like that.
I don't know where Nomen Nescio is, but in this part of the world
there are already Linux-centric folk willing to be paid to get phone
calls at 2am in the morning, in sectors varying from SME to corporate.
Customers of these folk probably get better answers than the vast
majority of MS customers ever get from a support call. Also, it'll be
a long time before Linux users are vulnerable to scamsters like Nerd
Support, one of whose reps spamcalled me the other day and who was
puzzled when I asked him where the Start menu he wanted me to click on
"to clear the errors he'd seen on my computer" could be found on an
Ubuntu computer (I don't use Ubuntu but wondered if he might at least
have heard of it and realise his MS-dependent scam was doomed to
failure).
Bob's assertion earlier on that MS will be around for a long time
rather depends on the continued success of the ecosystem that Bill
built.
MS's dependence on computer vendors, x86 hardware, and the general
ecosystem that Bill built could also be a contributor to their
downfall, because these players are all interlinked, and once enough
of them realise there is more money to be made without MS than there
is to be made with MS, there is an interesting risk of a domino
effect. It may or may not happen soon, but the phone market, where the
commercial deals with manufacturers have never favoured MS, is an
obvious example of how MS struggle outside their comfort zone. As are
datacentres, "the cloud", and probably anything which isn't a
combination of Wintel desktop inextricably linked by things like MS-
proprietary authentication mechanisms with Wintel server. That sector
has been a big part of the market for a long time. Before that, VMS
was a big part of the market for a long time. All things must pass.
Have a lot of fun.
VAXman-
May 14, 2012, 3:14:55 PM5/14/12
to
In article <YqadnQbVdK5g0yzS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>{...snip...}
>>
>{...snip...}
>>
>> I don't think Turbo-Tax is M$; in fact, I know it isn't because it would
>> NOT be installed on any system in my home if it was!
>
>> NOT be installed on any system in my home if it was!
>
>Turbo-Tax is not an MS product. It's a product of "Intuit". It does
>require Windows so I suppose you will have to "roll your own" to run
>under VMS.
This is the misinformed "I've-just-gotta-have-WEENDOZE" mentality. If
>require Windows so I suppose you will have to "roll your own" to run
>under VMS.
you'd have read what I'd written -- "I don't think Turbo-Tax is M$; in
fact, I know it isn't because it would NOT be installed on any system
in my home if it was!" -- then, you'd not have made such a misinformed
statement. Turbo-Tax and other Intuit products (Quicken, QuickBooks,
etc.) run on MORE than just WEENDOZE! Here, it's on Apple OS X. The
argument that one HAD to have WEENDOZE today is wearing thin. There's
a whole new world out there too and M$ is falling behind! Yeah!
John Wallace
May 14, 2012, 6:49:08 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 2:35 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
What stops something similar happening to MS in the retail market
three years from now, and in the corporates a little later? Obviously
it may NOT happen, but...
(That's the short version of my earlier essay).
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <joo1u9$em...@solani.org>, Michael Kraemer <M.Krae...@gsi.de> writes:
>
> > So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>
> M$ is slipping. But not very fast ,and they have a long way to go.
> The day will come.
It's not that long ago that people were saying things like "Nokia is
>
> > So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>
> M$ is slipping. But not very fast ,and they have a long way to go.
> The day will come.
slipping. But not very fast ,and they have a long way to go."
Now look where they have ended up (and who has led them there).
What stops something similar happening to MS in the retail market
three years from now, and in the corporates a little later? Obviously
it may NOT happen, but...
(That's the short version of my earlier essay).
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 7:43:38 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 5:51 AM, Paul Sture wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 21:28:51 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 10:25 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Paul Sture schrieb:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 21:28:51 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 10:25 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> Paul Sture schrieb:
>>>> Go back 22 years instead and getting into Unix and Sun was the advice,
>>>> based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
>>>
>>> And this one wasn't too bad too.
>>> If you look at it, Unix is just everywhere, in one flavour or another.
>>
>> Also dropping. Exactly same as VMS just 10-15 years delayed.
>
> Even the Linux flavour?
No.
>>>> based on their catalogue of applications which ran on their systems.
>>>
>>> And this one wasn't too bad too.
>>> If you look at it, Unix is just everywhere, in one flavour or another.
>>
>> Also dropping. Exactly same as VMS just 10-15 years delayed.
>
> Even the Linux flavour?
In this context real Unix.
And I would say even only the commercial Unixes.
AIX, Solaris, HP-UX.
(the open source BSD's are pretty stable in usage)
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 7:44:31 PM5/14/12
to
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 7:49:34 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 12:48 PM, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 7:12 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
>> Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>>
>>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>>> life did.
>>>>
>>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>>
>>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>>> the time.
>>>>
>>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>>
>> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>>
>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>
> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
> . . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
You can pick Ubunto.
> On 5/13/2012 7:12 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article<0rCdnXNUn4uPfTLS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B.
>> Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>>> On 5/13/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DEC/CPQ/HP did not ruin your career.
>>>>>
>>>>> The guy that told you 25 years ago that it was a good approach
>>>>> in the IT business to learn one technology and stick to that for
>>>>> life did.
>>>>
>>>> And what if he'd recommended Weendoze?
>>>>
>>>>> It is not the case. Technologies come and technologies go all
>>>>> the time.
>>>>
>>>> So when can we expect M$ to go away?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you write better software and charge a lot less for it!
>>
>> Micro$oft: premium priced shite software.
>>
>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>
> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
> . . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
It is designed to be as user friendly as Windows.
I just prefer Windows.
> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
> Processor, and Database.
They need web browser, email, word processor, maybe a spreadsheet,
all the secondary stuff (AcrobatReader, FlashPlayer, Java etc.)
and maybe some IM/Skype type of app.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 7:59:08 PM5/14/12
to
But migration from a true MS only environment is not that
easy.
Your server side stuff are in ASP.NET and SQLServer stored
procedures. Your documents and other files are in Sharepoint.
Your emails and calendar information is in Exchange. All the
documents are in Word and Excel formats. You have some only
work in IE web apps. You have desktop apps written in .NET.
It will take many years to migrate of.
And MS are sitting on a ton of cash. Per March 31st
they had 59 B$ in cash, cash equivalents and short
term investments (primarily US treasuries).
They can do a lot with that cash if they want/need to.
Among other things they could buy HP in a cash deal
(HP market cap is only 45 B$ today).
It can certainly be debated whether that would be
a good investment.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 8:00:53 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 1:06 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<tr6dndBwLpjxqizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>> {...snip...}
>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>
>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>
>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>> Processor, and Database.
>
> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
You have some alternatives that you like better.
>> {...snip...}
>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>
>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>
>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>> Processor, and Database.
>
> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
But apparently the majority of the consumers has other
preferences.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 8:04:42 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 8:04 AM, Mazzini Alessandro wrote:
:-)
SPARC and Solaris has been slowly but steadily dropping in usage
since the .COM bubble burst.
Then it dropped sharply when SUN was put up for sale due to
the uncertainty.
And now I think it is heading back to slowly but steadily dropping.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 8:08:58 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 2:07 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 4:51 PM, David Froble wrote:
>>> Did everybody that used VMS back in the "day" really need everything VMS
>>> did for them? No, and some were always going to move to smaller and
>>> cheaper systems. Word processing and spreadsheets and such were never a
>>> good fit for VMS. But there were many good fits for VMS. Could VMS have
>>> retained more market share than they did? I for one think they could
>>> have, if they would have changed with the times and market. DEC couldn't
>>> and didn't and is no longer with us. Compaq was never an option. HP
>>> ended up with VMS, but not because they wanted it.
>>
>> One thing is the changes in technology.
>>
>> But adopting to those changes can be made elegant or clumsy.
>>
>> I think DEC/CPQ/HP could have done a lot better.
>
> DEC was basically suicidal. They tried to embrace Windoz. That was the
> competition (enemy) and MS sure didn't do a damn thing for DEC. A bad
> one way street. Bad management.
Certainly not good management.
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 4:51 PM, David Froble wrote:
>>> Did everybody that used VMS back in the "day" really need everything VMS
>>> did for them? No, and some were always going to move to smaller and
>>> cheaper systems. Word processing and spreadsheets and such were never a
>>> good fit for VMS. But there were many good fits for VMS. Could VMS have
>>> retained more market share than they did? I for one think they could
>>> have, if they would have changed with the times and market. DEC couldn't
>>> and didn't and is no longer with us. Compaq was never an option. HP
>>> ended up with VMS, but not because they wanted it.
>>
>> One thing is the changes in technology.
>>
>> But adopting to those changes can be made elegant or clumsy.
>>
>> I think DEC/CPQ/HP could have done a lot better.
>
> DEC was basically suicidal. They tried to embrace Windoz. That was the
> competition (enemy) and MS sure didn't do a damn thing for DEC. A bad
> one way street. Bad management.
And I consider Palmer far worse than Olsen.
>> I believe that:
>> - keeping products like RDB inhouse
>
> This might have been one of DEC's biggest mistakes. As others have found
> out, when dealing with Larry you better watch your back and be wearing
> body armor.
>
> A better and cheaper alternative to Oracle would have appealed to many
> customers. They could have even ported RDB to other environments, and
> perhaps put some nails in Larry's coffin.
>> - continue to invest in new features (successors to Spiralog,
>> Snapshot, Galaxy etc.)
>
> That as far as I know hasn't happened elsewhere to this day. I think
> some of that may have been not so good to waste money on.
Log based file systems are widely used today. So is snapshot technology.
And ditto with virtualization.
been enough confidence in the new platform.
Arne
VAXman-
May 14, 2012, 8:12:10 PM5/14/12
to
In article <4fb19cb6$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <ar...@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>On 5/14/2012 1:06 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>On 5/14/2012 1:06 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article<tr6dndBwLpjxqizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>>> {...snip...}
>>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>>
>>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>>
>>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>>> Processor, and Database.
>>
>> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
>
>>> {...snip...}
>>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>>
>>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>>
>>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>>> Processor, and Database.
>>
>> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
>
>You have some alternatives that you like better.
No, they're better.
>But apparently the majority of the consumers has other
>preferences.
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 8:17:08 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 8:12 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
people that prefer green over red are morons.
People has certain preferences. And a good portion of
that is simply based on what they like and what they
don't like.
It does not make much sense to be negative about
their personal taste.
Arne
> In article<4fb19cb6$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=<ar...@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> On 5/14/2012 1:06 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>> In article<tr6dndBwLpjxqizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>> {...snip...}
>>>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>>>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>>>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>>>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>>>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>>>
>>>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>>>> Processor, and Database.
>>>
>>> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
>>
>> You have some alternatives that you like better.
>
> No, they're better.
>
>> But apparently the majority of the consumers has other
>> preferences.
>
> The majority of consumers are morons.
Sure - and blue is prettier than yellow - and
>> On 5/14/2012 1:06 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>> In article<tr6dndBwLpjxqizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>> {...snip...}
>>>>> There is much better software and, in many cases, it's free; so why _DO_
>>>>> people want to pay for Micro$oft crap?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's ubiquitous and it works. You may complain about "click and
>>>> drool" interfaces but they work and millions use them. The alternatives
>>>> are???????????????? If there are any, they are hard to find, expensive,
>>>> .. . . . It's practically a given that Brand X is
>>>> not compatible with Brands "Y" and/or "Z"!
>>>>
>>>> You have available the three "Killer Applications": Spreadsheet, Word
>>>> Processor, and Database.
>>>
>>> I have better alternatives on my Mac and on Linux.
>>
>> You have some alternatives that you like better.
>
> No, they're better.
>
>> But apparently the majority of the consumers has other
>> preferences.
>
> The majority of consumers are morons.
people that prefer green over red are morons.
People has certain preferences. And a good portion of
that is simply based on what they like and what they
don't like.
It does not make much sense to be negative about
their personal taste.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 8:25:54 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 2:35 PM, John Wallace wrote:
> I don't know if you remember, or were aware at the time, but windows
> were around before Windows(r). So were spreadsheets, word processors
> and databases.
WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and DBase came way before Word,
> I don't know if you remember, or were aware at the time, but windows
> were around before Windows(r). So were spreadsheets, word processors
> and databases.
Excel and Access.
> None of those were Microsoft's most significant invention. Microsoft's
> most significant invention was probably not Windows, it was probably
> semi-compulsory volume licencing deals with PC manufacturers,
> culminating in the "Windows tax" of the last decade or two, and just
> as importantly, building a commercially-motivated ecosystem around
> things like that.
> MS's dependence on computer vendors, x86 hardware, and the general
> ecosystem that Bill built could also be a contributor to their
> downfall, because these players are all interlinked, and once enough
> of them realise there is more money to be made without MS than there
> is to be made with MS, there is an interesting risk of a domino
> effect. It may or may not happen soon, but the phone market, where the
> commercial deals with manufacturers have never favoured MS, is an
> obvious example of how MS struggle outside their comfort zone. As are
> datacentres, "the cloud", and probably anything which isn't a
> combination of Wintel desktop inextricably linked by things like MS-
> proprietary authentication mechanisms with Wintel server. That sector
> has been a big part of the market for a long time. Before that, VMS
> was a big part of the market for a long time. All things must pass.
The MS eco system are almost gone. MS has taken over most
> ecosystem that Bill built could also be a contributor to their
> downfall, because these players are all interlinked, and once enough
> of them realise there is more money to be made without MS than there
> is to be made with MS, there is an interesting risk of a domino
> effect. It may or may not happen soon, but the phone market, where the
> commercial deals with manufacturers have never favoured MS, is an
> obvious example of how MS struggle outside their comfort zone. As are
> datacentres, "the cloud", and probably anything which isn't a
> combination of Wintel desktop inextricably linked by things like MS-
> proprietary authentication mechanisms with Wintel server. That sector
> has been a big part of the market for a long time. Before that, VMS
> was a big part of the market for a long time. All things must pass.
of the Windows only software market (development tools,
document repository, ERP already done - they are working
on the anti virus market).
MS is a big player in cloud with its Azure products.
MS is trying to get into ARM markets (smartphones
with Windows Phone and tablets with Windows). Windows
Phone has not been a success yet and it is uncertain
whether it will ever be so.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 8:28:09 PM5/14/12
to
They are not price competitive with Linux/x86-64 in the other tiers.
That is not really something Larry has decided. The same thing is
happening for AIX and HP-UX.
Arne
JF Mezei
May 14, 2012, 9:23:59 PM5/14/12
to
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Then it dropped sharply when SUN was put up for sale due to
> the uncertainty.
>
> And now I think it is heading back to slowly but steadily dropping.
With BCS sales tanking, I suspect customers are seeking other
> Then it dropped sharply when SUN was put up for sale due to
> the uncertainty.
>
> And now I think it is heading back to slowly but steadily dropping.
alternatives. And this may benefit Sun.
Not sure if Larry Ellison plays chess or poker. But he plays hard. I
would not want to be his ennemy.
Having said this, if Hurd does to Sun what he did to HP, Sun doesn't
have much of a future since he will cut all R&D and other "unnecessary"
expenditures.
JF Mezei
May 14, 2012, 9:38:56 PM5/14/12
to
With regards to Microsoft.
My gut tells me that Microsoft was really Bill Gates' baby. With him
gone and the company runned by Balmer, my sense is that Microsoft has
lost its sense of ambition and direction and leadership.
My sense is that Microsoft's attempt at re-entering the mobile market
was not driven from within but rather due to external pressure from
shareholders and media asking MS how come it wasn't in the mobile market.
For the desktop, while the statistics are still fairly harsh, don't
discount Apple. Mac laptops are seen everywhere, and more and more, you
see iMacs on desks. (this, despite Steve Jobs despising the
business/enterprise market where his reality distortion field didn't
work so well).
If MS started its downfall after Gates' departure, we'll have to give
Tim Cook a few years to see if he can contition to keep Apple in a
leadership position after Steve Jobs.
Digital's total failure in marketing has made me more aware of the need
to market. And so far, Apple has done a most incredible job of selling
iCubes (ice:-) to inuit. (eskimos).
My gut tells me that Microsoft was really Bill Gates' baby. With him
gone and the company runned by Balmer, my sense is that Microsoft has
lost its sense of ambition and direction and leadership.
My sense is that Microsoft's attempt at re-entering the mobile market
was not driven from within but rather due to external pressure from
shareholders and media asking MS how come it wasn't in the mobile market.
For the desktop, while the statistics are still fairly harsh, don't
discount Apple. Mac laptops are seen everywhere, and more and more, you
see iMacs on desks. (this, despite Steve Jobs despising the
business/enterprise market where his reality distortion field didn't
work so well).
If MS started its downfall after Gates' departure, we'll have to give
Tim Cook a few years to see if he can contition to keep Apple in a
leadership position after Steve Jobs.
Digital's total failure in marketing has made me more aware of the need
to market. And so far, Apple has done a most incredible job of selling
iCubes (ice:-) to inuit. (eskimos).
JF Mezei
May 14, 2012, 9:41:53 PM5/14/12
to
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Solaris/SPARC is being sold primarily as database servers today.
>
> They are not price competitive with Linux/x86-64 in the other tiers.
>
> That is not really something Larry has decided. The same thing is
> happening for AIX and HP-UX.
Fat chance for HP-UX with Oracle no longer producing new versions for it
> Solaris/SPARC is being sold primarily as database servers today.
>
> They are not price competitive with Linux/x86-64 in the other tiers.
>
> That is not really something Larry has decided. The same thing is
> happening for AIX and HP-UX.
and HP still adament they won't port HP-UX beyond IA64.
However, out of all this, you might see HP emerge with a very credible
Linux mainframe (Superdome with 8086s) with Oracle commitment for Oracle
on them, with HP providing enterprise mainframe class management tools
for Linux.
but HP has to hurry up, time is running out.
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 9:46:09 PM5/14/12
to
Oracle dropping Itanium support just speed up the
process a bit.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 10:02:33 PM5/14/12
to
And he has had a bunch of successes (Windows XP/7/2003/2008,
.NET, Sharepoint, XBOX, Azure) and a bunch of failures (Windows Vista,
Bing, Windows Phone).
It is well known that MS the last decade has been plagued
by many turf wars. And that has definitely slowed down
the innovation.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 10:03:59 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 9:23 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Then it dropped sharply when SUN was put up for sale due to
>> the uncertainty.
>>
>> And now I think it is heading back to slowly but steadily dropping.
>
> With BCS sales tanking, I suspect customers are seeking other
> alternatives. And this may benefit Sun.
Migrating to Solaris/SPARC would be a weird decision. The risk
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Then it dropped sharply when SUN was put up for sale due to
>> the uncertainty.
>>
>> And now I think it is heading back to slowly but steadily dropping.
>
> With BCS sales tanking, I suspect customers are seeking other
> alternatives. And this may benefit Sun.
of having to migrate again is simply too big.
Arne
JF Mezei
May 14, 2012, 10:53:29 PM5/14/12
to
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Ballmer has been CEO of MS for 12 years.
>
> And he has had a bunch of successes (Windows XP/7/2003/2008,
> .NET, Sharepoint, XBOX, Azure) and a bunch of failures (Windows Vista,
> Bing, Windows Phone).
But Bill Gates was still at Microsoft for much of that time driving the
> Ballmer has been CEO of MS for 12 years.
>
> And he has had a bunch of successes (Windows XP/7/2003/2008,
> .NET, Sharepoint, XBOX, Azure) and a bunch of failures (Windows Vista,
> Bing, Windows Phone).
technology vision. He only recently totally left the company in the last
couple of years if I recall correctly.
Arne Vajhøj
May 14, 2012, 10:59:10 PM5/14/12
to
he transitioned that job over to Ray Ozzie (that has since left
MS with no replacement).
Arne
Richard B. Gilbert
May 14, 2012, 11:39:07 PM5/14/12
to
(My favorite statistic.)
Michael Kraemer
May 15, 2012, 2:26:44 AM5/15/12
to
Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:
But M$ has 90% market share.
So where do the other fifty percent come from?
Something must be wrong with your statistics.
So where do the other fifty percent come from?
Something must be wrong with your statistics.
Bob Koehler
May 15, 2012, 9:40:11 AM5/15/12
to
In article <YqadnQbVdK5g0yzS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
> Turbo-Tax is not an MS product. It's a product of "Intuit". It does
> require Windows so I suppose you will have to "roll your own" to run
> under VMS.
It DOES NOT require Windows. We've been running it on MacOS for over
> Turbo-Tax is not an MS product. It's a product of "Intuit". It does
> require Windows so I suppose you will have to "roll your own" to run
> under VMS.
a decade.
Bob Koehler
May 15, 2012, 9:47:08 AM5/15/12
to
In article <4fb19c4e$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <ar...@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>
> Your server side stuff are in ASP.NET and SQLServer stored
> procedures.
My server side stuff is in RMS. SQL cannot be found.
>
> Your server side stuff are in ASP.NET and SQLServer stored
> procedures.
> Your documents and other files are in Sharepoint.
> Your emails and calendar information is in Exchange.
DECW$CALENDAR.
> All the
> documents are in Word and Excel formats.
> You have some only
> work in IE web apps. You have desktop apps written in .NET.
are written in Fortran, C, DCL, and BLISS.
>
> It will take many years to migrate of.
>
Bob Koehler
May 15, 2012, 9:52:31 AM5/15/12
to
In article <1-OdnT-qB951UizS...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> More than forty percent of the population have sub normal intelligence!
> (My favorite statistic.)
I know half our students are below average, but I'm not so sure how
>
> More than forty percent of the population have sub normal intelligence!
> (My favorite statistic.)
to define sub "normal".
ChrisQ
May 15, 2012, 11:22:59 AM5/15/12
to
On 05/15/12 03:39, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
> More than forty percent of the population have sub normal intelligence!
> (My favorite statistic.)
>
>
What, only that many ?...
>
> More than forty percent of the population have sub normal intelligence!
> (My favorite statistic.)
>
>
Who was it that said "opinions are like a****les" ?...
Regards,
Chris
David Froble
May 15, 2012, 12:04:59 PM5/15/12
to
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> The majority of consumers are morons.
>
I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
> The majority of consumers are morons.
>
1) The customer is always right
2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
If you're talking about the general usage of computers by people, don't forget that you
don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car, or a pilot to ride in an aircraft ....
To most people a computer is just another tool. There are other things in this world
besides being able to program computers. With today's tablet computers, forget
programming, it's just a tool that comes pre-configured with applications.
But you're almost correct. If you were to say "all humans are morons", you'd then be 100%
accurate. Just look around at the things people do, and consider normal ....
VAXman-
May 15, 2012, 2:01:38 PM5/15/12
to
In article <joturc$dh7$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>If you're talking about the general usage of computers by people, don't forget that you
>don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car, or a pilot to ride in an aircraft ....
No but it sure helps to know something about your car if it breaks down
on the side of the road. And, what if your pilot suddenly drops dead?
>To most people a computer is just another tool. There are other things in this world
>besides being able to program computers. With today's tablet computers, forget
>programming, it's just a tool that comes pre-configured with applications.
Correct. But there are quality tools and those you pick up at Harbour
Freight!
>But you're almost correct. If you were to say "all humans are morons", you'd then be 100%
>accurate. Just look around at the things people do, and consider normal ....
"So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth."
Excerpt from: The Galaxy Song -- Monty Python
>VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>
>
>
>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>
>
>I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
>
>1) The customer is always right
>2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
Well, if my customers were always right, I'd not have a job. ;)
>
>1) The customer is always right
>2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
>If you're talking about the general usage of computers by people, don't forget that you
>don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car, or a pilot to ride in an aircraft ....
on the side of the road. And, what if your pilot suddenly drops dead?
>To most people a computer is just another tool. There are other things in this world
>besides being able to program computers. With today's tablet computers, forget
>programming, it's just a tool that comes pre-configured with applications.
Freight!
>But you're almost correct. If you were to say "all humans are morons", you'd then be 100%
>accurate. Just look around at the things people do, and consider normal ....
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth."
Excerpt from: The Galaxy Song -- Monty Python
David Froble
May 15, 2012, 2:34:10 PM5/15/12
to
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <joturc$dh7$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>
>>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>>
>> I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
>>
>> 1) The customer is always right
>> 2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
>
> Well, if my customers were always right, I'd not have a job. ;)
Oh, I don't know about that. Maybe they are "right" when they decide to call you for help.
> In article <joturc$dh7$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>
>>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>>
>> I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
>>
>> 1) The customer is always right
>> 2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
>
> Well, if my customers were always right, I'd not have a job. ;)
>> If you're talking about the general usage of computers by people, don't forget that you
>> don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car, or a pilot to ride in an aircraft ....
>
> No but it sure helps to know something about your car if it breaks down
> on the side of the road.
> And, what if your pilot suddenly drops dead?
>> To most people a computer is just another tool. There are other things in this world
>> besides being able to program computers. With today's tablet computers, forget
>> programming, it's just a tool that comes pre-configured with applications.
>
> Correct. But there are quality tools and those you pick up at Harbour
> Freight!
a single use and then I don't care, sometimes it's cost effective. That doesn't get into
the issue of supporting China instead of US industry. I can get 3 aviation sheet metal
snips from China for $15, or one US mfg for $15. Trust me, I have the US mfg tools.
Richard B. Gilbert
May 15, 2012, 5:12:14 PM5/15/12
to
couldn't afford a Mac. I bought the el cheapo X86 MS-DOS that I *could*
afford!
In a career spanning almost forty years, I managed to get about four
hours of "face time" with a Mac.
It appeared, to me, that the graphic arts people loved the Mac and no
one else cared!
VAXman-
May 15, 2012, 5:50:09 PM5/15/12
to
In article <6-OdnUWNLcohWy_S...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>On 5/15/2012 9:40 AM, Bob Koehler wrote:
>On 5/15/2012 9:40 AM, Bob Koehler wrote:
>Sorry, I don't do Mac. When I went to buy a computer, I found that I
>couldn't afford a Mac. I bought the el cheapo X86 MS-DOS that I *could*
>afford!
>
>In a career spanning almost forty years, I managed to get about four
>hours of "face time" with a Mac.
>
>It appeared, to me, that the graphic arts people loved the Mac and no
>one else cared!
Well, I spend a lot of time around the music industry. They've embraced
>couldn't afford a Mac. I bought the el cheapo X86 MS-DOS that I *could*
>afford!
>
>In a career spanning almost forty years, I managed to get about four
>hours of "face time" with a Mac.
>
>It appeared, to me, that the graphic arts people loved the Mac and no
>one else cared!
the Mac for Firewire support of Pro-interfaces and for its reliability.
I could tell you several horror stories about the gigs I've been working
where one of the artists was using WEENDOZE and had problems with it. I
recall several that wound up cancelling the gig because the WEENDOZE box
was shitted! Sorry but toys just don't cut it for real audio production
work! Next month I'll do a 3 day live broadcast and I wouldn't think to
even try to use a WEENDOZE box. CTRL-ALT-DEL every couple of hours just
does not cut in the world of live performance!
Richard B. Gilbert
May 15, 2012, 7:01:43 PM5/15/12
to
middle is "normal" or "average"! Never mind that he/she is probably
indistinguishable from another person a million or two in either direction.
It looks shocking until you think about it.
JF Mezei
May 15, 2012, 7:27:41 PM5/15/12
to
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> In a career spanning almost forty years, I managed to get about four
> hours of "face time" with a Mac.
Facetime is now a trademark owned by Apple ... you can't use it unless
> In a career spanning almost forty years, I managed to get about four
> hours of "face time" with a Mac.
you own a Mac, iPhone or iPad :-)
> It appeared, to me, that the graphic arts people loved the Mac and no
> one else cared!
types, including normal people, techies (due to Unix inside) and even
lawyers.
In fact, graphic artists are not too happy with Apple moving to mass
market and abandoning its former niches.
The lighted Apple logo is everywhere these days. Go to a Starbucks and
you'll see plenty of yuppies sporting a lighted apple logo on their
aluminium laptops.
This is a bit reminiscent of the short live period in the mid 1980s
where Digital started to break out of the scientific appls and started
to get a lot of traction in business and other environments before the
success go to its head and they priced themselves out of the markets
they had just begin to succeed in.
JF Mezei
May 15, 2012, 7:35:55 PM5/15/12
to
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
> middle is "normal" or "average"!
However, I like Mr VAXman's argument that if 90% of people are using
> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
> middle is "normal" or "average"!
Windows, one really couldn't state that fewer than 50% of people are
below average intelligence.
Case in point: you could have 9 windows users with intelligence of "1"
and 1 person on a Mac with intelligence of "10". The average
intelligence is 1.9 which means that 90% are below average.
So now, we can not only claim that Mac users have better sex lives, but
are also 10 times as intelligent as Windows users :-)
(and AAPL shareholders are even more intelligent since they get all the
money from all those smart people buying those shiny Apple iToys with
the lighted Apple logo :-)
Arne Vajhøj
May 15, 2012, 7:43:13 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 7:35 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
>> middle is "normal" or "average"!
>
> However, I like Mr VAXman's argument that if 90% of people are using
> Windows, one really couldn't state that fewer than 50% of people are
> below average intelligence.
>
> Case in point: you could have 9 windows users with intelligence of "1"
> and 1 person on a Mac with intelligence of "10". The average
> intelligence is 1.9 which means that 90% are below average.
What Richard was talking about is called median.
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
>> middle is "normal" or "average"!
>
> However, I like Mr VAXman's argument that if 90% of people are using
> Windows, one really couldn't state that fewer than 50% of people are
> below average intelligence.
>
> Case in point: you could have 9 windows users with intelligence of "1"
> and 1 person on a Mac with intelligence of "10". The average
> intelligence is 1.9 which means that 90% are below average.
Arne
Richard B. Gilbert
May 15, 2012, 7:58:50 PM5/15/12
to
24x7. I'm running Windows XP Service Pack Three. It's been up for
years. The only times I've had to reboot have been when a power outrage
lasts long enough for my UPS to run down.
My consumer "router" rejects any incoming traffic that is not a response
to an outgoing packet. It will, on request, display the various
attempts to break in. The last time I looked, I was getting something
like 25 break in attempts per minute.
glen herrmannsfeldt
May 15, 2012, 8:26:54 PM5/15/12
to
Arne Vajhøj <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
(snip)
but not all. For most people, averave means mean.
Statisticians prefer the median, though, and in the case of median,
yes, it is really 50% that are below (and maybe some equal to) it.
-- glen
(snip)
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
>>> middle is "normal" or "average"!
(snip)
>>> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
>>> middle is "normal" or "average"!
> What Richard was talking about is called median.
For many popular distributions, the mean and median are equal,
but not all. For most people, averave means mean.
Statisticians prefer the median, though, and in the case of median,
yes, it is really 50% that are below (and maybe some equal to) it.
-- glen
Johnny Billquist
May 15, 2012, 8:27:22 PM5/15/12
to
Johnny
Bob Koehler
May 16, 2012, 9:50:32 AM5/16/12
to
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>
>
> I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
>
> 1) The customer is always right
> 2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
VAXman doesn't consider the majority of consumers to be his customers.
>
>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>
>
> I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
>
> 1) The customer is always right
> 2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
Niehter do most people, even in consumer oriented businesses. But
latter might like them to be.
Bob Koehler
May 16, 2012, 9:54:36 AM5/16/12
to
In article <6-OdnUWNLcohWy_S...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> It appeared, to me, that the graphic arts people loved the Mac and no
> one else cared!
Lots of us who hang around in c.o.v. appreciate quality software.
>
> It appeared, to me, that the graphic arts people loved the Mac and no
> one else cared!
We are professional programmers, or something close to that; we
believe we produce quality software, and we don't like organizations
that increase the popular belief that computers never get it right.
And I'm lucky enough to work in a Mac group that missed their VAXen,
and have Macs at home so I don't have to spend my time fighting
M$ like I have done in the past at other work.
Bob Koehler
May 16, 2012, 9:55:24 AM5/16/12
to
In article <V7GdndW4JrHtfS_S...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
>
> If you line everybody up from smartest to dumbest the man/women in the
> middle is "normal" or "average"! Never mind that he/she is probably
> indistinguishable from another person a million or two in either direction.
Average, obviously. But I don't agree that average is normal.
> indistinguishable from another person a million or two in either direction.
Bob Koehler
May 16, 2012, 9:56:36 AM5/16/12
to
In article <4fb2ea13$0$294$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <ar...@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>
> What Richard was talking about is called median.
In elementary school we learned three definitions of averge: mean,
>
> What Richard was talking about is called median.
median, and mode. None of them defined "normal".
Bob Koehler
May 16, 2012, 9:59:44 AM5/16/12
to
In article <AIudnRxTUetRcC_S...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> I think you must be doing something wrong. My Windows box is turned on
> 24x7. I'm running Windows XP Service Pack Three. It's been up for
> years. The only times I've had to reboot have been when a power outrage
> lasts long enough for my UPS to run down.
I think you must be patently lucky. I'm running WXP SP3. It has
>
> I think you must be doing something wrong. My Windows box is turned on
> 24x7. I'm running Windows XP Service Pack Three. It's been up for
> years. The only times I've had to reboot have been when a power outrage
> lasts long enough for my UPS to run down.
to reboot for patches at least once a month. It freezes up. I get
a couple BSOD a year.
Paul Sture
May 16, 2012, 11:10:55 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:04:59 -0400, David Froble wrote:
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>
>>
> I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
>
> 1) The customer is always right
> 2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
Except when the customer either costs more money to support than you make
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> The majority of consumers are morons.
>>
>>
> I see you've forgotten the 2 rules of business ...
>
> 1) The customer is always right
> 2) When the customer is wrong, refer to rule #1
from them, or continually moans about your service.
Sometimes the customer _is_ wrong and your best course of action is to
persuade them to go elsewhere.
--
Paul Sture
Paul Sture
May 16, 2012, 11:02:59 AM5/16/12
to
Modern Macs appeal to folks from many walks of life.
--
Paul Sture
Paul Sture
May 16, 2012, 11:18:11 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:04:59 -0400, David Froble wrote:
> To most people a computer is just another tool. There are other things
> in this world besides being able to program computers. With today's
> tablet computers, forget programming, it's just a tool that comes
> pre-configured with applications.
Well, my father had an assortment of cheap tools in his toolbox, and
> in this world besides being able to program computers. With today's
> tablet computers, forget programming, it's just a tool that comes
> pre-configured with applications.
helping him fix stuff was always a pain - rounded screwdrivers, electric
drills without enough oomph et al.
My reaction was to promise myself that I'd buy decent quality tools once
I started earning my own money.
A decnet joiner will pick his first saw carefully, buy a sharpening kit,
and use it regularly, for that saw is his livelihood. He won't being
getting that saw from Walmart.
--
Paul Sture
Paul Sture
May 16, 2012, 1:35:48 PM5/16/12
to
(identical apart from name and license) did not.
Fortunately Windows Home Server 2011 does a decent job of backing up the
one I have at home. I just select which backup I want to restore, pop in
a USB stick on the server where it writes the necessary stuff, then use
it to boot and restore the XP box. Somewhat unexpectedly it doesn't
touch the Linux partition, so I'm straight back in business once the
restore is done (and it's a gigabit link so pretty swift).
The backup provided by Windows Home Server 2011 is pretty good and hasn't
let me down in the 5 months I've been using it. I'm not keen on what I
consider to be overly restrictive licensing (you aren't supposed to run
business apps such as "MS Office or timesheet programs on it), and some
bits are a bit flaky, but the backup system does work.
--
Paul Sture
David Froble
May 16, 2012, 2:28:18 PM5/16/12
to
away with it. Some people insist on writing software that will not run on older versions
of windoz ...
I rarely re-boot, and I never turn on automatic updates. No freeking way is someone going
to change the way my systems work without my knowing about it and approving. I'm the same
way with VMS. I don't patch until I know what the patch does, and I feel it's pertinent
to me.
So yeah, windoz works the same today as it did yesterday. There sometimes are problems.
Nothing is perfect.
I cannot remember the last BSOD.
Yesterday Diablo III came out. I'm still more than a little bit hot.
Won't run on Windows 2000
Won't run on Windows XP with less than SP3
I think I'm going to need to be buying some better video cards
I won't even be playing the game, I just have to support the PCs in the family
When the requirements become Vista and Win7, the games will be going back for a refund
David Froble
May 16, 2012, 2:31:53 PM5/16/12
to
It's been a hard 2-part lesson, but I've learned it.
1) The customers will be wrong
2) The worst thing you can do is try to change a mind that doesn't want to be changed
It ain't perfect, but it's reality
David Froble
May 16, 2012, 2:33:13 PM5/16/12
to
Richard B. Gilbert
May 16, 2012, 9:52:20 PM5/16/12
to
What I have works well and has worked for years.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages