I don't see how a server in the cloud accessed at even gigabit speeds ($1000/month) is going to compete with local SSD, PCI bus speeds. If you are running an application that requires "horsepower" as in my example Photoshop, the latency would be a killer even if you could run it from a server. I've tried it at 100 mbs and it is almost unusable. I don't know what sort of CPU power Amazon gives you but I doubt it measures up to a dedicated i7 with 8GB ram. I have not looked into the details. Also haven't they been known for going down several hours at a time recently?
You obviously don't know how cloud apps work. You don't need to transfer all the data back and forth, most of it stays on the server, only the visuals and input/output information is sent to you (and then you download the final product when you need it). Cloud apps are generally also set up on large clusters with virtualized OSes and apps. This means that you are accessing a cluster with thousands of cores and terabytes of RAM and storage, and processing power is shifted to where it's needed on demand.
Cloud services have always been good for me (not talking 'cloud' storage BTW), most providers are incredibly reliable.
You're right I still don't understand it. Again with the Photoshop as that is something I know a lot about:
If I decide to paste a 100 MB worth of data into a new layer, I have to actually move that data to where the scratch disk is. If I am scaling it, rotating it, changing the histogram, I need instant feedback with no latency to make decisions. If I am going to pay $1000/month for gigabit ethernet, which isn't really that fast, to the server at Amazon, why shouldn't I just work local and spend way less on my own, cpu, storage and ram and get 1000 times more speed so I can actually be effective and efficient in my workflow?
Cloud makes sense for server-like data as in websites but not for raw power of large data in a single user environment as it takes time to move the data across the Internet. And it is expensive.
I don't see how a server in the cloud accessed at even gigabit speeds ($1000/month) is going to compete with local SSD, PCI bus speeds. If you are running an application that requires "horsepower" as in my example Photoshop, the latency would be a killer even if you could run it from a server. I've tried it at 100 mbs and it is almost unusable. I don't know what sort of CPU power Amazon gives you but I doubt it measures up to a dedicated i7 with 8GB ram. I have not looked into the details. Also haven't they been known for going down several hours at a time recently?
Depends on what kind of computing you do. If you are bandwidth bound, then you might have a point. Otherwise, for scientific computing application (where the computation all happens in the cloud) you can beat your local PC by arbitrarily factors (and you can get a single instance which is an order of magnitude faster than your desktop -- the real point, though, is that you can get thousands of instances. For boring things like Photoshop, sure, use your iMac.
I hate it when people go "Windows Computers are incredible% less than the equivalent iMac". Stop looking at the Gigahertz and look at the computer as a complete package.
An equivalent monitor to the 21" iMac costs around $300~$400. The equivalent of the 27" iMac's monitor is around $800+! Don't forget the USB Bluetooth, the PCI Express Wireless Card, the Infrared Remote Control Sensor, the 20watt speakers with Sub Woofer, bluetooth keyboard, multi-touch bluetooth mouse, HD WebCam, firewire, thunderbolt, noise canceling microphone, USB2/3 combination ports and studio quality low latency audio with 7.1 digital/2.0 analogue hybrid output. Don't forget that many of the business features of Windows can't be accessed until you pay extra for the Professional or Ultimate edition.
The Windows towers you can get from Dell, Acer, HP et al don't have many or any of the features listed above and have to be bought separately.
Go to Dell, look at alienware boxen, note that you get MUCH more bang for the buck from them then from the iMac. Unfortunately for you, clue must be bought separately.
Try compressing a video file. My son's I7 computer took 15 minutes while his schools Mac Pro took more than 7 hours. I think the MacPro processor may have been slightly faster but it was cripped by the Mac's video card. Trying to do this on a iMac would have been torture.
You're right I still don't understand it. Again with the Photoshop as that is something I know a lot about:
If I decide to paste a 100 MB worth of data into a new layer, I have to actually move that data to where the scratch disk is. If I am scaling it, rotating it, changing the histogram, I need instant feedback with no latency to make decisions. If I am going to pay $1000/month for gigabit ethernet, which isn't really that fast, to the server at Amazon, why shouldn't I just work local and spend way less on my own, cpu, storage and ram and get 1000 times more speed so I can actually be effective and efficient in my workflow?
Cloud makes sense for server-like data as in websites but not for raw power of large data in a single user environment as it takes time to move the data across the Internet. And it is expensive.
Apple has AirPlay mirroring, cords and more for people who want a TV for games, yet it doesn't require a TV, and does a lot more than video games on a long time ago dropped disk slot from apple. So how does Xbox defeat IOS. Admetiably Apple want defeat Microsoft soon,(both company's have lost there most important worker) yet Apple will probably kill there phoned and tablets. Probably eventually half the pc market with no chance.
I have Windows 8 on an Asus Vivobook S200e and its actually a nice OS on specifically designed hardware. However, the only reason its actually nice to use is because the laptop has a touch screen and its a small 11" screen.
Without the touchscreen it just becomes cumbersome - I have it on a second partition on my MacPro and good lord I hate using it on there. No touch screen and the giant 27" monitor makes throwing the mouse pointer into the corners feel clunky; as does the alternative (the extra onslaught of keyboard shortcuts) - there are also countless other usability issues that even confuse me from time to time (and I'm a man who programs in Assembler for fun!)
For less technical people (the majority of the market) it's just scary and confusing for them. For business/enterprise users its just a joke that stopped being funny.
Microsoft is more like a plastic scissor than a Swiss army knife when compared with any real POSIX OS.
What does POSIX have to do with anything? Otherwise, Visual Studio is the best IDE around if you like that kind of thing (I don't, since I am old skool, but many people do).
You're apparently right. Your comment is news to me though. One method requires a registry edit, two others require running third party software to set it up.
Do you pay for your gigabit Internet? If not give, Cox or Level 3 or whatever, a call and ask for a quote from your business to their metro ethernet conection. In my case it is actually $1200 but I just rounded it to a thousand.
The way this discussion evolved is that there was someone saying you don't need high power in your computer because the cloud provides the power therefore you should only need a generic cheap Windows PC. I disagree with that premise and point out that traditionally Mac users are in large part of the artistic/creative community and cloud computing is contrary to their type of work flow as they tend to use large files which are not easy to deal with over the Internet.
They release a radically changed user interface and they think their OEMs are to blame for poor uptake. Naturally. To make their cognitive dissonance even stronger, the recent crop of hardware looks fine, some of it looks very nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVertigo
Slumping economy? Yet every single apple product blows the doors off the store?
It might be fair to say that the typical buyers of Windows computers may be in a more vulnerable economic position than typical Mac buyers.
LOOKS nice perhaps, until you watch it fall apart due to low manufacturing quality and suddenly discover that its not true multitasking and thus unsuitable for efficient and productive creative or "office" work.
The major problem is Microsoft don't do regular, incremental changes to Windows. Instead, they make wholesale changes like Windows 8, then can't understand why the users find it too much to deal with. Windows users whine about Apple OSX updates not being major updates. Apples biggest change came with OSX from OS9. It was a huge gamble, they copped a lot of flack at the time, but is the single major factor for Apple being as strong as they are today. Each incarnation of OSX since have come with changes, but none so great that users have to relearn or rethink what they have done previously. One other thing about Windows is that serious users wait for the first or second updates before installing a new version. That says something about why the numbers would be down.
Everyone I've spoken to from the Microsoft camp equates windows 8 to vista. I suppose they are looking forward to windows 9. As for corporate desktops....fudgetaboutit! Any windows 8 inquiry is greeted with laughter.
Now, now. I was joking, but the point was that the things I was thinking of that require "horsepower" are big computational experiments, where hundreds of cores are used. Photoshop is more fun than a barrel of monkeys (well, the results are, anyhow), but is a consumer desktop application, so not fun from the "how can we ever compute this" standpoint.
Do you pay for your gigabit Internet? If not give, Cox or Level 3 or whatever, a call and ask for a quote from your business to their metro ethernet conection. In my case it is actually $1200 but I just rounded it to a thousand.
The way this discussion evolved is that there was someone saying you don't need high power in your computer because the cloud provides the power therefore you should only need a generic cheap Windows PC. I disagree with that premise and point out that traditionally Mac users are in large part of the artistic/creative community and cloud computing is contrary to their type of work flow as they tend to use large files which are not easy to deal with over the Internet.
I never knew you could even get gigabit internet for any price! Otherwise, your point is well-taken -- as I had said in some other post, we just have a different view of what a compute-intensive application is. Mine tend to be CPU intensive, yours are throughput intensive. The thing about gigabit internet is a good example -- I did not know about its existence, because I never needed it. I care much more about the latency (low latency would make the cloud look more like your desktop, but maybe not enough like it for your needs...)
Those are some nice number. A few things to bear in mind:
1/. The XBox division still hasn't broken even on the amount of cash poured into it over the years.
2/. Microsoft has sold 70million XBox360 consoles in total. Apple total sales of iOS devices are near 400million. Even if you could prove your assertion that 'a lot' of IOS device have been thrown away, the chances are that the 'thrower' will buy a new iOS device to replace it.
3/. In the last quarter, Apple sold more AppleTV units than Microsoft sold XBoxes, an increase of 170%. Not bad for a 'beloved hobby'.
4/. Apple's iOS stuff alone makes more money than the whole of Microsoft.
Don't forget a very large number of those initial XBox's died via red ring of death. One warranty provider put the number at 23%. So how many of those XBoxes were sold as replacements to out of warranty units?
Also to the one poster that said they purchased a large number of Windows 7 licenses for future use, Microsoft does have a program that allows a user of any OS to down grade to a previous version of any supported OS. That being said, I see Windows 7 as being the new XP. I deal with several business that will be exercising the backward licensing option and have no interest in Windows 8.
What does POSIX have to do with anything? Otherwise, Visual Studio is the best IDE around if you like that kind of thing (I don't, since I am old skool, but many people do).
You don't seam to be old skool enough for me . I think POSIX OS like BSD, Linux and OSX are better Swiss Army Knife in terms of tools than Windows as POSIX comes with a full featured userland. You got choice of IDEs and a fully scriptable shell with powerfull tools like rsync, awk, grep and scp that you can pipe and script together. You got real logs with real and useful informations not just a generic: contact your administrator error message. Beside, visual Studio does not come with Windows and Xcode - Clang have nothing to envy from Microsoft' IDE
You don't seam to be old skool enough for me . I think POSIX OS like BSD, Linux and OSX are better Swiss Army Knife in terms of tools than Windows as POSIX comes with a full featured userland. You got choice of IDEs and a fully scriptable shell with powerfull tools like rsync, awk, grep and scp that you can pipe and script together. You got real logs with real and useful informations not just a generic: contact your administrator error message. Beside, visual Studio does not come with Windows and Xcode - Clang have nothing to envy from Microsoft' IDE
You won't really get much argument from me on the unix programming model -- this is why I started using Macs in the first place (they are unix machines which are actually polished, so for laptops way better than linux boxes, for back end computing I did and still do use linux). On the other hand, Objective C is really quite ancient technology (admittedly with very nice libraries), C#/F# is the only really modern programming language supported by a major OS vendor. (I don't like IDEs because they don't support the unix model, btw, but my few experiments with VS seem to indicate that if I did like that kind of thing, that's the kind of thing I might like...)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't see how a server in the cloud accessed at even gigabit speeds ($1000/month) is going to compete with local SSD, PCI bus speeds. If you are running an application that requires "horsepower" as in my example Photoshop, the latency would be a killer even if you could run it from a server. I've tried it at 100 mbs and it is almost unusable. I don't know what sort of CPU power Amazon gives you but I doubt it measures up to a dedicated i7 with 8GB ram. I have not looked into the details. Also haven't they been known for going down several hours at a time recently?
You obviously don't know how cloud apps work. You don't need to transfer all the data back and forth, most of it stays on the server, only the visuals and input/output information is sent to you (and then you download the final product when you need it). Cloud apps are generally also set up on large clusters with virtualized OSes and apps. This means that you are accessing a cluster with thousands of cores and terabytes of RAM and storage, and processing power is shifted to where it's needed on demand.
Cloud services have always been good for me (not talking 'cloud' storage BTW), most providers are incredibly reliable.
You're right I still don't understand it. Again with the Photoshop as that is something I know a lot about:
If I decide to paste a 100 MB worth of data into a new layer, I have to actually move that data to where the scratch disk is. If I am scaling it, rotating it, changing the histogram, I need instant feedback with no latency to make decisions. If I am going to pay $1000/month for gigabit ethernet, which isn't really that fast, to the server at Amazon, why shouldn't I just work local and spend way less on my own, cpu, storage and ram and get 1000 times more speed so I can actually be effective and efficient in my workflow?
Cloud makes sense for server-like data as in websites but not for raw power of large data in a single user environment as it takes time to move the data across the Internet. And it is expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't see how a server in the cloud accessed at even gigabit speeds ($1000/month) is going to compete with local SSD, PCI bus speeds. If you are running an application that requires "horsepower" as in my example Photoshop, the latency would be a killer even if you could run it from a server. I've tried it at 100 mbs and it is almost unusable. I don't know what sort of CPU power Amazon gives you but I doubt it measures up to a dedicated i7 with 8GB ram. I have not looked into the details. Also haven't they been known for going down several hours at a time recently?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Depends on what kind of computing you do. If you are bandwidth bound, then you might have a point. Otherwise, for scientific computing application (where the computation all happens in the cloud) you can beat your local PC by arbitrarily factors (and you can get a single instance which is an order of magnitude faster than your desktop -- the real point, though, is that you can get thousands of instances. For boring things like Photoshop, sure, use your iMac.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
I hate it when people go "Windows Computers are incredible% less than the equivalent iMac". Stop looking at the Gigahertz and look at the computer as a complete package.
An equivalent monitor to the 21" iMac costs around $300~$400. The equivalent of the 27" iMac's monitor is around $800+! Don't forget the USB Bluetooth, the PCI Express Wireless Card, the Infrared Remote Control Sensor, the 20watt speakers with Sub Woofer, bluetooth keyboard, multi-touch bluetooth mouse, HD WebCam, firewire, thunderbolt, noise canceling microphone, USB2/3 combination ports and studio quality low latency audio with 7.1 digital/2.0 analogue hybrid output. Don't forget that many of the business features of Windows can't be accessed until you pay extra for the Professional or Ultimate edition.
The Windows towers you can get from Dell, Acer, HP et al don't have many or any of the features listed above and have to be bought separately.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Go to Dell, look at alienware boxen, note that you get MUCH more bang for the buck from them then from the iMac. Unfortunately for you, clue must be bought separately.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
Try compressing a video file. My son's I7 computer took 15 minutes while his schools Mac Pro took more than 7 hours. I think the MacPro processor may have been slightly faster but it was cripped by the Mac's video card. Trying to do this on a iMac would have been torture.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Mac Pro from when? This is meaningless without more info.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
You're right I still don't understand it. Again with the Photoshop as that is something I know a lot about:
If I decide to paste a 100 MB worth of data into a new layer, I have to actually move that data to where the scratch disk is. If I am scaling it, rotating it, changing the histogram, I need instant feedback with no latency to make decisions. If I am going to pay $1000/month for gigabit ethernet, which isn't really that fast, to the server at Amazon, why shouldn't I just work local and spend way less on my own, cpu, storage and ram and get 1000 times more speed so I can actually be effective and efficient in my workflow?
Cloud makes sense for server-like data as in websites but not for raw power of large data in a single user environment as it takes time to move the data across the Internet. And it is expensive.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I don't understand this $1000 a month figure.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah
Apple has AirPlay mirroring, cords and more for people who want a TV for games, yet it doesn't require a TV, and does a lot more than video games on a long time ago dropped disk slot from apple. So how does Xbox defeat IOS. Admetiably Apple want defeat Microsoft soon,(both company's have lost there most important worker) yet Apple will probably kill there phoned and tablets. Probably eventually half the pc market with no chance.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }What ARE you talking about?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
I have Windows 8 on an Asus Vivobook S200e and its actually a nice OS on specifically designed hardware. However, the only reason its actually nice to use is because the laptop has a touch screen and its a small 11" screen.
Without the touchscreen it just becomes cumbersome - I have it on a second partition on my MacPro and good lord I hate using it on there. No touch screen and the giant 27" monitor makes throwing the mouse pointer into the corners feel clunky; as does the alternative (the extra onslaught of keyboard shortcuts) - there are also countless other usability issues that even confuse me from time to time (and I'm a man who programs in Assembler for fun!)
For less technical people (the majority of the market) it's just scary and confusing for them. For business/enterprise users its just a joke that stopped being funny.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }You do know you can disable Metro, right?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
I just bought my girlfriend an Apple TV, and she found it far more usable than her Xbox. Lets hope Apple can get some apps on that pronto.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }You can play Halo 3 on an Apple TV???? I did NOT know that.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
Microsoft is more like a plastic scissor than a Swiss army knife when compared with any real POSIX OS.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }What does POSIX have to do with anything? Otherwise, Visual Studio is the best IDE around if you like that kind of thing (I don't, since I am old skool, but many people do).
You're apparently right. Your comment is news to me though. One method requires a registry edit, two others require running third party software to set it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I don't understand this $1000 a month figure.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Do you pay for your gigabit Internet? If not give, Cox or Level 3 or whatever, a call and ask for a quote from your business to their metro ethernet conection. In my case it is actually $1200 but I just rounded it to a thousand.
The way this discussion evolved is that there was someone saying you don't need high power in your computer because the cloud provides the power therefore you should only need a generic cheap Windows PC. I disagree with that premise and point out that traditionally Mac users are in large part of the artistic/creative community and cloud computing is contrary to their type of work flow as they tend to use large files which are not easy to deal with over the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
For boring things like Photoshop, sure, use your iMac.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Please entertain us with the exciting things that you do with cloud computing. I only do boring things like photoshop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
They release a radically changed user interface and they think their OEMs are to blame for poor uptake. Naturally. To make their cognitive dissonance even stronger, the recent crop of hardware looks fine, some of it looks very nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVertigo
Slumping economy? Yet every single apple product blows the doors off the store?
It might be fair to say that the typical buyers of Windows computers may be in a more vulnerable economic position than typical Mac buyers.
LOOKS nice perhaps, until you watch it fall apart due to low manufacturing quality and suddenly discover that its not true multitasking and thus unsuitable for efficient and productive creative or "office" work.
The major problem is Microsoft don't do regular, incremental changes to Windows. Instead, they make wholesale changes like Windows 8, then can't understand why the users find it too much to deal with. Windows users whine about Apple OSX updates not being major updates. Apples biggest change came with OSX from OS9. It was a huge gamble, they copped a lot of flack at the time, but is the single major factor for Apple being as strong as they are today. Each incarnation of OSX since have come with changes, but none so great that users have to relearn or rethink what they have done previously. One other thing about Windows is that serious users wait for the first or second updates before installing a new version. That says something about why the numbers would be down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Please entertain us with the exciting things that you do with cloud computing. I only do boring things like photoshop.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Now, now. I was joking, but the point was that the things I was thinking of that require "horsepower" are big computational experiments, where hundreds of cores are used. Photoshop is more fun than a barrel of monkeys (well, the results are, anyhow), but is a consumer desktop application, so not fun from the "how can we ever compute this" standpoint.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Do you pay for your gigabit Internet? If not give, Cox or Level 3 or whatever, a call and ask for a quote from your business to their metro ethernet conection. In my case it is actually $1200 but I just rounded it to a thousand.
The way this discussion evolved is that there was someone saying you don't need high power in your computer because the cloud provides the power therefore you should only need a generic cheap Windows PC. I disagree with that premise and point out that traditionally Mac users are in large part of the artistic/creative community and cloud computing is contrary to their type of work flow as they tend to use large files which are not easy to deal with over the Internet.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I never knew you could even get gigabit internet for any price! Otherwise, your point is well-taken -- as I had said in some other post, we just have a different view of what a compute-intensive application is. Mine tend to be CPU intensive, yours are throughput intensive. The thing about gigabit internet is a good example -- I did not know about its existence, because I never needed it. I care much more about the latency (low latency would make the cloud look more like your desktop, but maybe not enough like it for your needs...)
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
Those are some nice number. A few things to bear in mind:
1/. The XBox division still hasn't broken even on the amount of cash poured into it over the years.
2/. Microsoft has sold 70million XBox360 consoles in total. Apple total sales of iOS devices are near 400million. Even if you could prove your assertion that 'a lot' of IOS device have been thrown away, the chances are that the 'thrower' will buy a new iOS device to replace it.
3/. In the last quarter, Apple sold more AppleTV units than Microsoft sold XBoxes, an increase of 170%. Not bad for a 'beloved hobby'.
4/. Apple's iOS stuff alone makes more money than the whole of Microsoft.
Don't forget a very large number of those initial XBox's died via red ring of death. One warranty provider put the number at 23%. So how many of those XBoxes were sold as replacements to out of warranty units?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You do know you can disable Metro, right?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Yep, it's called Windows 7. ;-)
Also to the one poster that said they purchased a large number of Windows 7 licenses for future use, Microsoft does have a program that allows a user of any OS to down grade to a previous version of any supported OS. That being said, I see Windows 7 as being the new XP. I deal with several business that will be exercising the backward licensing option and have no interest in Windows 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
What does POSIX have to do with anything? Otherwise, Visual Studio is the best IDE around if you like that kind of thing (I don't, since I am old skool, but many people do).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You don't seam to be old skool enough for me
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
You don't seam to be old skool enough for me
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }You won't really get much argument from me on the unix programming model -- this is why I started using Macs in the first place (they are unix machines which are actually polished, so for laptops way better than linux boxes, for back end computing I did and still do use linux). On the other hand, Objective C is really quite ancient technology (admittedly with very nice libraries), C#/F# is the only really modern programming language supported by a major OS vendor. (I don't like IDEs because they don't support the unix model, btw, but my few experiments with VS seem to indicate that if I did like that kind of thing, that's the kind of thing I might like...)
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }