"Linux is already at 9% market share in the enterprise market". Ya? I'd link to see a link for that. Oh just servers I guess. I have yet to see any inroads on the client side.
Last I checked, the overall Linux hasn't cracked 1.5% yet [http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9] or maybe 1.25% [http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=0].
Oh ya. while Windows fans aren't thrilled with Windows 8, Windows 7 is still selling. Do not expect those who dislike Windows 8 to deside to switch to Linux. The same thing was probably predicted when Vista came oput and no real increase in Linux usage.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
and not just the North American desktop vendor sales market.
Red Hat has been selling systems and support to enterprise customers for many years, and making a good profit off it. They wouldn't being getting paid for the support if the companies weren't using Linux systems.
BTW There has been an increased growth in the use of Linux since Vista came out, but since most of it has been outside of the North American continent it's been ignored by a lot of people in the US IT industry.
Red Hat has been selling systems and support to enterprise customers for many years, and making a good profit off it. They wouldn't being getting paid for the support if the companies weren't using Linux systems.
BTW There has been an increased growth in the use of Linux since Vista came out, but since most of it has been outside of the North American continent it's been ignored by a lot of people in the US IT industry.
I remember a couple of months ago when I had trouble backing up my claim of 5% on the desktop.
Ya! I use Linux all the time. Writing on Ubuntu 12.04 on my lil' laptop right now. But, I have it loaded on dual boot with Windows 7 Pro. I wouldn't be caught without Windows 7 Pro. When all else fails -- break out the Windows 7 Pro. Linux is never going to surpass Windows like was thought a decade ago by hopeful Windows haters. The probable likelyhood in my lifetime of any OS for PC's, laptops or servers that really surpass what Micosoft puts out is not likely to happen. Just like what almost killed off MacIntosh back in the day -- ARROGANCE -- is most likely going to do the Linux world in or at the least keep it suppressed. It takes Linux developers way too long to keep step with what Microsoft has to offer in order to surpass the monopoly software giant. The biggest reason for Linux surviving as long as it has is it is basically free to obtain. People tend to forget that up until now -- getting a driver for certain elements of a system running Linux could take from weeks to months to years. People tend to forget that most Linux programs being built today are still not 1st Rate softwares and the ones that are still cost. Cost is good for commerce and development -- but, most Linux users don't want to pay anything out....I mean nothing at all. Everyone thought that Google was going to put Microsoft on the bench for a long time. That didn't happen. Microsoft is coming back to play hardball and if you don't think that it is going to play a rough game -- you just aren't playing with a full deck yourself. Microsoft Windows 7 Pro is still the very best OS on the market in the world that has ever been. It runs pretty much flawless and you can buy the heavy weight apps such as Autocad, SmartCam, Microsoft Office, all kinds of software developer programs from so many other companies aside from MIcrosoft that it's remarkable. The owners of the opensource commercial grade softwares are a handful of billions in dollars billionaires versus tens of billions of dollars billionares Bill Gates and Steve Bullyface Balmer. Statistically - it is going to take the opensource software industry about four or more decades to even get up to the 20 percent mark of the marketplace in software. By that time -- most of us who started with the opening events in opensoftwares will be dead and gone all that is going to be left is opensource scraps for the masses and all the good stuff will be put into the commercialized "pay for use" heap. Opensource is great. I love it and it's been a big part of my life but, realistically - the one thing that speaks louder than free is money. Money and commerce equals a winning solution everytime. Great things always start seemingly free....but, once they have used their purposeful times as "free" - cash barks loud and commerce takes over.
there are billions of embedded Linux systems in use in equipment around the world. The majority of servers in use are Linux.
CAD for Linux is improving greatly, with Dassault Sytem??s offering DraftSight2 in a Linux version. What is your take on some of the major players (AutoCAD, etc.) working toward a release of a serious modern CAD package for Linux? With Ubuntu opening the doors to proprietary applications, we are seeing a decline in the "pure" Open Source attitude, and NVidia promising better Linux drivers, I see some real potential developing. Better graphics, fewer system crashes, less time spent on system maintenance- got to be a winner...
Check out BricsCAD. http://www.bricsys.com They have been making an alternative for AutoCAD for almost a decade at least for Windows and Mac. They have ported their product to Linux. I have loaded AutoCAD 2010 dwg's in the latest BricsCAD version for Linux without any issues. BricsCAD still needs to port over much of their add-on packages yet. Most of the commands are the same as AutoCAD so it is a fairly easy transition.
CAD is used by a tiny bit of the population unlike "office" applications, games, etc.
The longer Microsoft mucks around with Windows-8, in trying to make it a premier OS for all sorts of totally different platforms and uses, the better the opportunities for some open source OS to come along and replace Windows. The concept of an "ecosystem" made Apple great in the consumer marketplace but not in the business marketplace. Why does Microsoft want to copy Apple?
the people at Microsoft have absolutely NO INNOVATION capability or original thoughts, never have, never will. All the changes in Windows for then last decade or so have been stuff copied from various versions of Linux three or four years earlier, or stuff stolen from others, or stuff copied from Apple.
Hell, even the horrid Win 8 is copied from a variant of Linux a few years back, but the Linux version did it better - and they decided it wasn't going anywhere.
Hell, even the horrid Win 8 is copied from a variant of Linux a few years back, but the Linux version did it better - and they decided it wasn't going anywhere.
Regardless of where Microsoft stands regarding technical superiority or inferiority, they have, and have had for decades, all the momentum. People (non-techies) have no interest in new learning curves. I don't ever expect any Linux to be the going thing on desktops, and really don't care. Open Source software is doing just fine without having a sizable Desktop market share. Why does it even matter?
the crappy Windows systems as we spend a LOT of time fixing rubbish problems that would never have been an issue with Windows was made right the first time around.
Wow -- dude, if you only knew how many gigabytes of data I have lost becasue of opensource crappage. I go to bed at night and sleep restfully due to the fact that I know all my data on my Linux servers and desktops are backed up on my Windows 2008 server that I paid for. I can't afford a bunch of Windows servers but, I can afford one and that one saves my bacon on my Linux servers. I wouldn't trust a Linux FS for anything. Just a handful of weeks ago the Ext4 system revealed a new deadly flaw. I thought for years it was me -- but, I've been vindicated. It was that damn FS afterall. I still use it though. Just have to make sure all my Ext4 drives are backed up on a NTFS server. I won't go to BTRFS yet either due to the deadly flaws it's still wooing in the shadows of users being guinea pigs. Granted Windows NT4 had the same problems that the Linux world is going through now -- but, largely those issues have been fixed. Not to say "**** doesn't happen" becaue it does. Made to make a choice and I could afford it -- Windows server FS is the one I do trust the most.
My actual job title is Linux Engineer...I work for a federal contractor that uses it in datacenters in mission critical roles. It is a well known fact to all of us that the only servers that just run without incident are the *nix ones.
With that said, there is definitely a lot of open source crapware. People start things...lose interest...etc. It's best to stick with the known good software unless you're prepared to deal with some setbacks.
With that said, there is definitely a lot of open source crapware. People start things...lose interest...etc. It's best to stick with the known good software unless you're prepared to deal with some setbacks.
Wonder when was the last time you even touched Windows. Vista maybe? Fix problems? I can't remember when the last time I had a problem in windows 7 and it's not just me. I know plenty of clients who don't have problems.
Of course you have the real support problem with Linux. Install the latest Ubuntu version [12.04] and Canonical will support it for how long before you have to upgrade? Every time you upgrade your system is down for a while during the upgrade and then you find out something doesn't work.
Or maybe you want a nice MFP but drivers aren't available for Linux except maybe some odd workaround that gives you partial features.
Don't tell me this never happened in Linux...
Of course you have the real support problem with Linux. Install the latest Ubuntu version [12.04] and Canonical will support it for how long before you have to upgrade? Every time you upgrade your system is down for a while during the upgrade and then you find out something doesn't work.
Or maybe you want a nice MFP but drivers aren't available for Linux except maybe some odd workaround that gives you partial features.
Don't tell me this never happened in Linux...
the easiest one was finding the well buried default security policy that turned the wi-fi system off after 15 minutes of non use. The old lady was complaining about having to keep turning it off and on to make the wi-fi work.
Finding Win 7 drivers for printers originally designed to work with XP - woops, sorry don't have them because MS changed the commands AGAIN. A client has a few thousand dollars of CD data files that don't work now as the new systems have Win 7 and they don't use the same commands as the Win 98 and Win 2000 the search programs on them were created for. And NO, the Win XP mode does NOT work with all Win 2000 and Win XP software. Awaiting HQ approval to install a VM to be able to use the CDs again, but have an old box on hand to use them at the moment.
Ayep, Win 7 JUST works, but only with Win 7 compatible software and hardware.
Finding Win 7 drivers for printers originally designed to work with XP - woops, sorry don't have them because MS changed the commands AGAIN. A client has a few thousand dollars of CD data files that don't work now as the new systems have Win 7 and they don't use the same commands as the Win 98 and Win 2000 the search programs on them were created for. And NO, the Win XP mode does NOT work with all Win 2000 and Win XP software. Awaiting HQ approval to install a VM to be able to use the CDs again, but have an old box on hand to use them at the moment.
Ayep, Win 7 JUST works, but only with Win 7 compatible software and hardware.
command sets means I don't know what I'm doing! I wasn't the one who elected to NOT follow the standards, that was the Microsoft management deciding to do that so they could push for Vendor lock-in and make more money. They choose to build in incompatibilities to force people to pay them more money.
SKDT,
At least Linux has the setting where they're easier to find and allow for any easier way to adjust them. But really, turn wi-fi off after 15 minutes as a default - that's just plain stupid.
SKDT,
At least Linux has the setting where they're easier to find and allow for any easier way to adjust them. But really, turn wi-fi off after 15 minutes as a default - that's just plain stupid.
This discussion has been taken to The Water Cooler / View thread
was actually XP- and I abandoned that, ultimately, for Ubuntu, because I found myself spending way too much time on system maintenance- registry issues, cleaning up malware, rebuilding the system because it just became unstable for no obvious reason. Upgrading a Windows system (beginning with Win 3.1) generally resulted in breaking critical apps, and rendering ancillary hardware non functional.
I stopped upgrading my Ubuntu at 10.04, because of personal insecurity over the Unity/GNOME 3 trends- going directions I have no desire to go. But, back when I would upgrade the system, it was generally painless and straight forward, as installing a Linux distro on a new system (no need to seek out obscure drivers, etc. to get my hardware to work- everything just works nicely) is straight-forward and simple. Most importantly, I have never had a problem with legacy software (or hardware) working with a Linux update.
As to quality of software, within the scientific community, the best, BY FAR, solutions are generally Open Source and developed on *.nix platforms. Such outfits as NIST, Argonne National Laboratories, EDF of France, as well as many universities throughout the world, release scientific analysis packages that outperform, in terms of both capabilities and speed, most any commercial package I have explored. For you CAD jockeys out there, brlCAD, released as an Open Source package by the US Military Ballistics Research Laboratory, was doing things 20 years ago that commercial 3D modeling systems are only now starting to adopt- including very sophisticated ray tracing, etc. What a lot of Open Source software lacks is the fancy eye candy of the GUI, which actually interferes with performance...
I stopped upgrading my Ubuntu at 10.04, because of personal insecurity over the Unity/GNOME 3 trends- going directions I have no desire to go. But, back when I would upgrade the system, it was generally painless and straight forward, as installing a Linux distro on a new system (no need to seek out obscure drivers, etc. to get my hardware to work- everything just works nicely) is straight-forward and simple. Most importantly, I have never had a problem with legacy software (or hardware) working with a Linux update.
As to quality of software, within the scientific community, the best, BY FAR, solutions are generally Open Source and developed on *.nix platforms. Such outfits as NIST, Argonne National Laboratories, EDF of France, as well as many universities throughout the world, release scientific analysis packages that outperform, in terms of both capabilities and speed, most any commercial package I have explored. For you CAD jockeys out there, brlCAD, released as an Open Source package by the US Military Ballistics Research Laboratory, was doing things 20 years ago that commercial 3D modeling systems are only now starting to adopt- including very sophisticated ray tracing, etc. What a lot of Open Source software lacks is the fancy eye candy of the GUI, which actually interferes with performance...
Yeah, you get that and I get that, but the dopes at M$ keep changing the UI with every iteration. XP had the Playskool interface, then Vista was all about the special effects, (7 fixed Vista,) and now 8 is all about cutting the special effects and getting back to business, but instead of staying with the tried and true UI from Win2K or XP, they go all Metro and figure the same UI for a smart phone should work on a tablet, laptop, and desktop. Doh!
M$ has all the momentum, (and it has served them well,) but they are doing their best to squander it fast!
Who writes their business plans? Monti Python?
M$ has all the momentum, (and it has served them well,) but they are doing their best to squander it fast!
Who writes their business plans? Monti Python?
and use more sense than has been shown with Win 8
I stand humbly corrected. Never again will I besmirch the good name of Monti Python.
In other news, Microsoft, proving that corporations are indeed people, has been cast in the roll of the "not dead yet" guy in an off off off Broadway production of Spam-a- lot. (Of course, we all know how that works out for him...)
In other news, Microsoft, proving that corporations are indeed people, has been cast in the roll of the "not dead yet" guy in an off off off Broadway production of Spam-a- lot. (Of course, we all know how that works out for him...)
I agree that "non-techies" have no interest in new learning curves. They are already complaining about Windows 7 differences to XP and many are refusing to leave XP and when they find the magic "end of support" date arrives and XP still works, they will continue to use it until the H/W breaks. The same holds true for those who had to move to Windows 7.
If Windows 8 sales turn out to be weak in the "non-techies" market, other companies, besides Dell, will start to look more closely at a Linux distro that still resembles XP (or WIn. 7). ZorinOS is one that comes to mind as Ubuntu has created the same waves in the Linux world as Metro. Plus there seems to be an effort underway to bring back Gnome 2.
If Windows 8 sales turn out to be weak in the "non-techies" market, other companies, besides Dell, will start to look more closely at a Linux distro that still resembles XP (or WIn. 7). ZorinOS is one that comes to mind as Ubuntu has created the same waves in the Linux world as Metro. Plus there seems to be an effort underway to bring back Gnome 2.
I got a number of clients still using Win 98SE and two still with Win 3.11 - none of the techs at the local IT shops even know how to load DOS let alone use it or Win 3.11. I get a lot of word of mouth business from that client group - the grey power group.
Neither UNIX or Linux has any GUI that resembles XP or anything past Windows 2000. The Windows GUI is built into and attached to the Windows kernel. That's why you can't ditch the GUI and work straightaway on the Cmd line in DOS. Linux at best resembles Windows 3.1. I remember the days of Windows 3.1 desktops and Windows 3.1 server running on Netware 3.1. You could unattache the GUI at anytime and go right into a Cmd line and get down to the dirty work that had to be done on the hard drives or driver setups. To compare GNOME or KDE GUI's to XP -- Wow -- that's an insult. I've tried to get the Linux developers to build a GUI into the kernel -- but, I guess Linus isn't haven't anything to do with that. And Windows 8 is but, the forefront of what's to come with the Windows 8 OS which is will become completely voice activated everything within a few years. A whole new market. Eventually I can see even the Gorilla glass touch screens being gone. Seriously -- though -- comparing GNOME/KDE to XP??? Wow!
Resembles means nothing. Still have the different apps - or did they also duplicate Outlook Express?
Even XP rests atop a form of DOS. Vista was the first MS OS to completely rid itself of the last vestiges of DOC, and you could still boot to a command prompt if you wanted to. The new versions of MS's Server OS allows you to forgo the GUI altogether to reduce the attackable footprint of the OS. So no, the GUI is not built into the kernel.
to the OS kernel, it's still an application that runs over the kernel. Zorin OS has a few GUIs you can choose from and one of them is made to look very like Win XP.
That is the silliest idea I have heard since the last time I heard it. Even after years of research, development and use they can't even get dictation software to work 100% accurately. We have a long way to go before there is enough processing power packed into a small enough, fast enough package to make voice control a feasible control interface and even then it won't be practical. Who wants to work in a cube farm where everyone is talking at their computers for their entire shift? Too distracting.
Where the crew interacts with the computer by talking to it?
Ever notice how, even in the 23rd century, they can only talk to it one at a time?
Ever notice how, even in the 23rd century, they can only talk to it one at a time?
one microphone as the sound waves will get confused with more than one speaking. But the do seem to have more than one suing it at a time by being in different rooms.
how many workplaces do you know where only one person is talking at a time? How about multiple players trying to voice control a game console?
My point is that voice operation has more problems to overcome than just the clarity of recognition.
My point is that voice operation has more problems to overcome than just the clarity of recognition.
at a time, and the majority of such have been military or flight operations or law enforcement type places. However, I can see how using a more directional mike would be useful with voice activated computer systems. but the main point of my last post was that some of the Star trek episodes make it clear that multiple people are accessing the computer by voice from different locations at the same point in time; thus showing it had multi user capability.
I use XP, Win. 7 and various Linux distros. First of all, the folders and application icons I have on my desktop don't look much different on any of the those systems - e.g., to the extent that the icon for LibreOffice is different than the icon for MS Office is about it. If I wanted to copy the MS Office icon into the Linux icon directory, I could and use it for LibreOffice. However, the point is an icon on the desktop is an icon. I could easily adapt every icon on my Linux desktop to look like the comparable icon on my XP or Win, 7 desktop, In that sense, it would look like Windows. On some of the current distros (and Ubuntu-based distros prior to 11.04), I can set up panels (bottom AND top). I can populate a bottom panel much the same way as the Windows taskbar.
Granted, I am not going to get an exact match all the time but I can make it look close. I will agree that the underlaying Linux function may not always support the same options as the comparable Windows function, but as a whole, it will accomplish most, if not all that the non-techie types typically use.
BTW, if I use WINE, I can populate my desktop with the Window applications that install under WINE and then it functions exactly as Windows.
I'd also suggest you take a look at ZorinOS and find out that you can have a desktop that has the look and feel of Linux Gnome 2, Windows XP or Windows 7. You can select from the "Start" menu which desktop you prefer. Logoff and log back on. Granted, you will still have Linux beneath the surface (except for any Window apps installed under WINE).
Besides WINE, I also use DOSBox and DOS Emulator to handle any old DOS programs I still use. I also use DOSBox on Windows 7 to handle stuff that ran on XP command line and earlier but won't run on Windows 7.
So before you knock it, give it a try (ZorinOS in a VirtualBox VM). You may be pleasantly surprised.
Granted, I am not going to get an exact match all the time but I can make it look close. I will agree that the underlaying Linux function may not always support the same options as the comparable Windows function, but as a whole, it will accomplish most, if not all that the non-techie types typically use.
BTW, if I use WINE, I can populate my desktop with the Window applications that install under WINE and then it functions exactly as Windows.
I'd also suggest you take a look at ZorinOS and find out that you can have a desktop that has the look and feel of Linux Gnome 2, Windows XP or Windows 7. You can select from the "Start" menu which desktop you prefer. Logoff and log back on. Granted, you will still have Linux beneath the surface (except for any Window apps installed under WINE).
Besides WINE, I also use DOSBox and DOS Emulator to handle any old DOS programs I still use. I also use DOSBox on Windows 7 to handle stuff that ran on XP command line and earlier but won't run on Windows 7.
So before you knock it, give it a try (ZorinOS in a VirtualBox VM). You may be pleasantly surprised.
First some non-technies won't even know that there is no support. Others won't care. They think they are careful enough that they won't have an issue.
Even if Windows 8 sales do tank [a bit] it wont' drive non-techies to Vista. While Windows 7 is still selling, more will look for a Windows 7 system.
Non-techies are use to what they have. Some small changes to go to Windows 7 isn't a problem. Completely switching to a different platform is. Apps they are familar with won't exist.
Even if Windows 8 sales do tank [a bit] it wont' drive non-techies to Vista. While Windows 7 is still selling, more will look for a Windows 7 system.
Non-techies are use to what they have. Some small changes to go to Windows 7 isn't a problem. Completely switching to a different platform is. Apps they are familar with won't exist.
@Gisabun: You are right thet many users will not switch platform because of their existing apps. I'm not sure why you didn't apply this logic to XP users. I can't think of a single software vendor still developing for XP. User's will upgrade to Win 7 or Win 8 to keep using the latest versions of their favorite programs.
Maybe in the enterprise, but the typical non-techie will stick with what still works. Why should they run out and spend hundreds of dollars (or Euros or whatever) for the latest upgrade when they are not going to use any of the new function. Most non-techie users operate under the principal "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Also, when they find out they can get comparable Open Source for free and does what they need (and supports the data formats of what they had been using), why buy an upgrade.
Some hardware vendors, on the other hand, wrote utilities for their hardware to run under XP and aren't yet developing for Win 7.
hardware designed to work with XP to work with Win 7 as they hope to sell you their latest models instead of getting your existing one to work with Win 7.
Also the issue with apps is not new apps, but existing core business apps that work with XP and would cost a fortune to replace with ones that'll work with Win 7.
Also the issue with apps is not new apps, but existing core business apps that work with XP and would cost a fortune to replace with ones that'll work with Win 7.
Microsoft is and always has been a company based on synergy. While IBM and Apple wanted to corner the market on their versions of what they thought was a better OS than what Microsoft had -- they never really opened up the market to other businesses for making money off their OS's. For a price Microsoft has always been willing to allow any business to have under contract a inroute to Microsoft's source codes. Not all -- but, the ones needed for developing user softwares and drivers for equipment. Windows has basically done the same thing with the Linux world of softwares. Microsoft initially was built on UNIX servers with C/C++. I mean this is taking you back to the day when the earth was created almost. Linux wasn't even an active part of the matrix. Rockets, space planes, aeroplanes, ships, skyscrapers and more have been built using softwares like Autocad, Versicad, SmartCam, Mastercam and done on Windows OS's. Granted -- there has been some rough growing times -- but, the world is a much better place to be due largely to Microsofts efforts and it supporting other software companies. Some movies were built on Mac's but, short of that -- Microsoft has been the guy you could rely on to be on the world building turf. UNIX and Linux have had and still have their place in the world -- but, at this point Microsoft is working on voice activated everything for the future. The UNIX/Linux world has about two or three decades of research to bring these new features to the populace via "free opensource". Can you imagine sitting in a silent work booth talking to a computer screen using Autocad and describing in detail what Autocad is to do while it creates your new three dimension drawing or edits an old one done by yourself or even someone else? Opensource doesn't even have a tried and evenly matched Autocad competitor that you can even use a freaking wireless digitizer with yet. Within the next 3 to 5 years I firmly believe a engineer sitting at some desk mouse hacking out some drawing is going to be passe. Can you imagine sitting in that same silent room creating a musical orchestration? Microsoft does nothing but drives innovation. It actually created most all the innovation of the opensource arena. Microsoft is the greatest innovator of all time when it comes to doing things faster, better and cheaper. If it had been left up to IBM and Apple -- we'd still be living in the 80's paying prices that only the wealthy can afford. And for journalists saying that Apple brought the PC to the market is also false. IBM created the PC first and then Japan created wannabe PC's and called them clones. I had my first clone a year before Apple even blowed it's nose on the market and then it didn't do much and had no apps for it -- until Jobs sucked up to Gates and Microsoft made having a Apple worth thinking about. At the same time that Apple finally came out with the Apple PC -- I was already using young CAD/CAM programs from 2 to 10 man private software businesses to build robotic parts. Microsoft was a strong innovative force in the creation of gorilla glass for touch screens. Small companies banded together to work out the issues the Microsoft put forth with it's ideas of where its heading with it's softwares -- but, nevertheless it was a huge innovator.
... you actually knew what you were talking about.
/facepalm
Quote: """Rockets, space planes, aeroplanes, ships, skyscrapers and more have been built using softwares like Autocad, Versicad, SmartCam, Mastercam and done on Windows OS's."""
Recently? Maybe... Historically? Not on your life. I worked at GM (EDS) back in '89-'90, and we used *zero* CAD on the desktop; everything was done on the IBM 3090 and Amdahl 5890 mainframes... think about it:
Desktop computer at the time: 12MHz 80286 to 25MHz 80386. Mips: ~6. (My 80386SX-16 was 3 Mips.) 2 Meg RAM. 66 Meg HD. VGA video (640x480) was just coming out, affordably at least. Coprocessors helped, but were not ideal. 0.2 Mflops, in fact.
IBM 3090 Model S Mainframe computer at the time: 66.7MHz clock rate (actually rated as a 15ns cycle time); Mips: 100. Separate parallel vector processors were available that provided 133Mflops each, and each mainframe could have 6, for a total of 800Mflops. 512 Meg RAM. Each DASD (That's IBM speak for Hard drive) cabinet could hold over 22 Gigabytes, you could attach almost 1/2 a Terabyte to a system _back then_. 24 inch vector monitors with vector processors that basically provided nearly unlimited resolution.
Which would you rather use?
http://books.google.com/books?id=9fYFiZ7QeEcC&pg=PA319
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~alanb/faq/Sun-Hardware-2.faq
[[ Search for '80387' in the link above as it's just a text file. ]]
=-=-=-=
Quote: """Some movies were built on Mac's but, short of that -- Microsoft has been the guy you could rely on to be on the world building turf. """
Huh? Maybe for home movies, I've never heard of a major production house using Mac's for movie publishing. Or Windows. All the 3D rendering for the first several seasons of Babylon 5 was done on *Amigas*. Toy Story 1 & 2 (dunno about 3) and every other Disney animation before that was done on Sun Servers. (Unix) The SGI series machines (also Unix) were used by many movies as well. All the 3D effects for the first Hulk movie was done on Linux. Linux's inroads to 3D effects and movie houses are due to the fact they're very easy (just like Unix before it) to create parallel processes required for renderfarms. Windows did not have that ability until much later in the game.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Movie_Making_Manual/Linux_in_film_production#Who_already_uses_GNU.2FLinux.3F
[[ As a matter of fact, if you google 'windows used for movie production' (sans quotes) the 2nd link listed is the one above. ]]
=-=-=-=
Quote: """Microsoft does nothing but drives innovation."""
Yes, but they mostly innovate in marketing, not in technology.
=-=-=-=
Quote: """It actually created most all the innovation of the opensource arena."""
Really? What are your sources? Please list them.
=-=-=-=
Quote: """And for journalists saying that Apple brought the PC to the market is also false. IBM created the PC first and then Japan created wannabe PC's and called them clones."""
Uh... you might want to check your personal computer creation timeline... Apple certainly wasn't the first - but the Apple 1 predated the IBM PC by almost *5 years!* Tandy (Radio Shack), Commodore, Atari, Texas Instruments, and even Timex had personal computers *long* before IBM. IBM was big in the mainframe market (roughly akin to what we would call the 'server' market nowadays) but did not introduce the PC until '81.
Google "Personal Computer Timeline" (again, sans quotes) and the first link is this:
http://pctimeline.info/mini.htm - or -
http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category=cmptr
=-=-=-=
Quote: """Microsoft was a strong innovative force in the creation of gorilla glass for touch screens."""
Could you please provide references / sources to that statement as well?
=-=-=-=
Where I ask for sources, I will admit I do not know. Honestly, I'm assuming those statements are false due to the exceptionally large amount of incorrect information within your post. Please keep in mind: I have absolutely *no* problem being proved wrong, however, and I have no _proof_ to the contrary.
However, I feel I have provided more than enough proof where you *are* wrong, and have provided sources / attribution to those facts.
/facepalm
Quote: """Rockets, space planes, aeroplanes, ships, skyscrapers and more have been built using softwares like Autocad, Versicad, SmartCam, Mastercam and done on Windows OS's."""
Recently? Maybe... Historically? Not on your life. I worked at GM (EDS) back in '89-'90, and we used *zero* CAD on the desktop; everything was done on the IBM 3090 and Amdahl 5890 mainframes... think about it:
Desktop computer at the time: 12MHz 80286 to 25MHz 80386. Mips: ~6. (My 80386SX-16 was 3 Mips.) 2 Meg RAM. 66 Meg HD. VGA video (640x480) was just coming out, affordably at least. Coprocessors helped, but were not ideal. 0.2 Mflops, in fact.
IBM 3090 Model S Mainframe computer at the time: 66.7MHz clock rate (actually rated as a 15ns cycle time); Mips: 100. Separate parallel vector processors were available that provided 133Mflops each, and each mainframe could have 6, for a total of 800Mflops. 512 Meg RAM. Each DASD (That's IBM speak for Hard drive) cabinet could hold over 22 Gigabytes, you could attach almost 1/2 a Terabyte to a system _back then_. 24 inch vector monitors with vector processors that basically provided nearly unlimited resolution.
Which would you rather use?
http://books.google.com/books?id=9fYFiZ7QeEcC&pg=PA319
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~alanb/faq/Sun-Hardware-2.faq
[[ Search for '80387' in the link above as it's just a text file. ]]
=-=-=-=
Quote: """Some movies were built on Mac's but, short of that -- Microsoft has been the guy you could rely on to be on the world building turf. """
Huh? Maybe for home movies, I've never heard of a major production house using Mac's for movie publishing. Or Windows. All the 3D rendering for the first several seasons of Babylon 5 was done on *Amigas*. Toy Story 1 & 2 (dunno about 3) and every other Disney animation before that was done on Sun Servers. (Unix) The SGI series machines (also Unix) were used by many movies as well. All the 3D effects for the first Hulk movie was done on Linux. Linux's inroads to 3D effects and movie houses are due to the fact they're very easy (just like Unix before it) to create parallel processes required for renderfarms. Windows did not have that ability until much later in the game.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Movie_Making_Manual/Linux_in_film_production#Who_already_uses_GNU.2FLinux.3F
[[ As a matter of fact, if you google 'windows used for movie production' (sans quotes) the 2nd link listed is the one above. ]]
=-=-=-=
Quote: """Microsoft does nothing but drives innovation."""
Yes, but they mostly innovate in marketing, not in technology.
=-=-=-=
Quote: """It actually created most all the innovation of the opensource arena."""
Really? What are your sources? Please list them.
=-=-=-=
Quote: """And for journalists saying that Apple brought the PC to the market is also false. IBM created the PC first and then Japan created wannabe PC's and called them clones."""
Uh... you might want to check your personal computer creation timeline... Apple certainly wasn't the first - but the Apple 1 predated the IBM PC by almost *5 years!* Tandy (Radio Shack), Commodore, Atari, Texas Instruments, and even Timex had personal computers *long* before IBM. IBM was big in the mainframe market (roughly akin to what we would call the 'server' market nowadays) but did not introduce the PC until '81.
Google "Personal Computer Timeline" (again, sans quotes) and the first link is this:
http://pctimeline.info/mini.htm - or -
http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category=cmptr
=-=-=-=
Quote: """Microsoft was a strong innovative force in the creation of gorilla glass for touch screens."""
Could you please provide references / sources to that statement as well?
=-=-=-=
Where I ask for sources, I will admit I do not know. Honestly, I'm assuming those statements are false due to the exceptionally large amount of incorrect information within your post. Please keep in mind: I have absolutely *no* problem being proved wrong, however, and I have no _proof_ to the contrary.
However, I feel I have provided more than enough proof where you *are* wrong, and have provided sources / attribution to those facts.
...only I was in the Telecom and USG groups.
WE, however, were working with HP's 9000 Series 75x PA-7000 RISC screamers of Unix desktops, with separate GPUs and memory and 8-plane graphics. Very nice machines and heavily used in Engineering environments - them and Silicon Graphics. At 1/100th or so of the cost of the big iron.
Nevertheless the rest of your comments are correct. Took desktops quite a while to catch up to that big iron I/O - if they ever did.
People who forget or even downplay big iron environments really needed to see some of this stuff actually work to gain an appreciation. For instance, the high-end IBM laser printers that the US Navy and (I assume) all big customers had back in the mid to late 80's. Used rolls of paper that needed two people to load, but when it started printing - lolololololololololol at anyone dreaming about a desktop printer even being in the same galaxy as that kind of speed. 2000 pages a minute (text), and it would run until the roll of paper ran out. The two paper loaders also had to unload the cut, fanfolded paper that came out. I have NO IDEA how much that cost.
WE, however, were working with HP's 9000 Series 75x PA-7000 RISC screamers of Unix desktops, with separate GPUs and memory and 8-plane graphics. Very nice machines and heavily used in Engineering environments - them and Silicon Graphics. At 1/100th or so of the cost of the big iron.
Nevertheless the rest of your comments are correct. Took desktops quite a while to catch up to that big iron I/O - if they ever did.
People who forget or even downplay big iron environments really needed to see some of this stuff actually work to gain an appreciation. For instance, the high-end IBM laser printers that the US Navy and (I assume) all big customers had back in the mid to late 80's. Used rolls of paper that needed two people to load, but when it started printing - lolololololololololol at anyone dreaming about a desktop printer even being in the same galaxy as that kind of speed. 2000 pages a minute (text), and it would run until the roll of paper ran out. The two paper loaders also had to unload the cut, fanfolded paper that came out. I have NO IDEA how much that cost.
I don't know if you remember the 1403 printers (came with the IBM 1401 systems). You could write a small programs and play music on the print chain. One of my favorites was the Marine Hymn, complete with drum roll e al. Semper Fi!
BTW, how many cups of coffee were spilled when the printer ran out of paper and the cover raised for the change?
BTW, how many cups of coffee were spilled when the printer ran out of paper and the cover raised for the change?
I forget how many bloody replacement characters I had to buy for the damn things.
They were also very good to disable the bulk of the machinery and hide in to scare the heck out of someone coming over to see why it wasn't printing. They reach the printer and hit the button to open the case and you stick your head out, many techs had fun doing that.
They were also very good to disable the bulk of the machinery and hide in to scare the heck out of someone coming over to see why it wasn't printing. They reach the printer and hit the button to open the case and you stick your head out, many techs had fun doing that.
with reminders of changing print chains, bands, drums, not to mention ribbons; or of operating decollators, bursters, etc.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
