Posted on 10/04/2005 5:33:08 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Windows was broken and Microsoft has admitted it. In an unprecedented attempt to explain its Longhorn problems and how it abandoned its traditional way of working, the normally secretive software giant has given unparalleled access to The Wall Street Journal, even revealing how Vice President Jim Allchin, personally broke the bad news to Bill Gates.
(Excerpt) Read more at smartofficenews.com.au ...
Then why don't you move over to open source everything tomorrow? emacs is easy to use.
> As a former US Army CI Agent - I can personlly testify that the military has been draining the swamp of terrorism since at least 1985!!!!
Well, us civilians didn't learn of it until Nov 01 when I made that tag line. Have used it on every post ever since and won't stop until the swamp is gone.
And to think I've actually been saying nice things about you to others recently.
Do you believe that there is no place in the computing environment for mainframes? There are many situations where anything else is wildly inappropriate.
Maybe the outsourced programmers in India can fix it.
NAV has become a POS. I have AVG free on one home machine and Norton on another. Norton demands to be activated at least once a week. Once the licence expires, it's history.
Most of the machines I manage now have AVG and MS Anti-spyware. None have ever bluescreened and none have acquired any malware.
okay, then - wasn't trying to be meanspirited :)
No worries. :) I'm still hot over my linux problem. The wholesale amount of low-rent software I've been dealing with is worse than the first disk of "freeware" programs I got with my CP/M machine.
Rrrrrrrright. As long as you get your TCO and ROI figures from IBM (who are constantly trying to shill their zSeries mainframes), you can probably claim that mainframes are cheaper. But they're not. Upfront hardware and software costs are astronomical. IBM tries to hide the software costs by pretending that people are going to deploy freeware Linux on their mainframes (they aren't -- but once IBM gets them with the initial purchase, that's just a detail that gets lost in the shuffle). IBM also extends the range of TCO analysis unreasonably to something like 20 or 30 years. Finding competent mainframe programmers is very difficult -- and it's getting more difficult every year. That translates into far higher labor costs going forward.
Depends on which hemisphere you look in.
And your figures are from, let me guess, MS???
I also notice you ignored the mid range machines (wonder why??)
You KNOW that you are wrong, but, you will continue to claim that Bill Gates and MS sh*T gold - I have never understood why you, or anyone else *without a vested interest*, would defend MS so strongly. Neither IBM nor MS are "the Greatest" - and no one "product" is the be all and end all in IT/IS. Each of us has certain favourites - but to claim "superhuman" attributes which simply don't exist is, well, childish.
Lighten up Francis. Did I say that?
It is rock solid, I know state departments that are running XP and office and they're having very few problems.
If you're having so many problems, maybe you should start checking your hardware or more likely, there's a piece of software that isn't Xp compatible but you do know you can tell software to run in compatability mode, right? You've got your choices of '95, 98, NT 4.0 and 2000.
From my post #35: As usual you a re clueless to the midrange / mainframe market and the ROI and TCO figures - but here's a clue - any MS configuaration that could, in theory, satisfy the same needs (uptime, transaction speed, etc...) exceeds the costs of the midrange mainframe systems by exponential figures.....
Selectively chosing arguments??
YOU claimed "And the cost of actually maintaining that mainframe crap is astronomical..." in reference to "90% of corporate data is still in IMS and performing rings around anything MS could do. DB2 has more new development (that actually work in production) than SQLServer." By implication you claim that the "MS" Cost is not "astronomical" for comparable level of service / quality - PROVE IT!
By all means point out where I've ever done that.
See above and just about every post where you claim that MS is better than (fill in whatever OS / Application you desire) -
uhhh, where do I chime in that my BSOD from NT/XP has become a White Screen of Death under XP Media Center?
Not only that, I can't join a domain. Bastards.
You won't get much sympathy here, it's obviously YOUR fault! [/sarcasm]
bttt
Yes, absolutely. In legacy maintenance-only systems. But there are far better alternatives for new development.
For years I've been seening folks come out with these "death of the mainframe" claims, and yet they continue to be wrong. There are applications that neither minicomputers, PeeCees, nor Beowulf clusters of commodity hardware can touch for any amount of money. If you need real 99999+ availability on a box with massive disk bandwidth among other things, you're just not going to get it with anything but systems designed from the ground up to meet the desired requirements.
To even come close to claiming 5-9 reliability on anything but the most expensive minicomputers, you have to be living in a dream world.
Sure, in raw computational horsepower for special types of problems that benefit from hightly parallel computation, a cluster of inexpensive boxes is a fine solution. If you need a system that can massage and manage multi-terabyte databases, a glorified desktop box just won't do the job.
There are valid business uses for all classes of computers, because each fills a specific type of need. (These roles shift and change a bit over time though as the tech advances.) To say otherwise is to display ignorance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.