The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Battling Google, Microsoft Changes How It Builds Software
Originally posted by Darkstar
It's not a matter of lag versus cache. You can do most of your business now via Web Forms, and most companies are.
The performance of apps (and thus their usability) is very much a function of network lag. In fact, I have made my living for the last 2 years solving this problem and the company I work for was just bought for $43 million USD. Of course my share of that purchase price was infinitessimal.
“It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
Originally posted by VetLegion
BTW. I'd love to see Google build an OS. That way Microsoft would get real competition. But IM and GMail aren't really going to take Big M down
Agreed. They're like a poodle down the block who barks to much; annoying but not really a threat.
He was showing an example for the simpleton who seemed to assert if an OS was delayed it means it'd lose marketshare unless it was a monopoly, which is ridiculous.
Such loss of market share happened frequently in the old dos days because there were some half a dozen different makers of compatable OSes on the market competing for your dollars. If one missed a ship date or didn't update their OS often enough then everyone just switched to a different version of dos.
That was real competition and we don't have that now.
The problem with alot of these desktop OSes, is ironically, bloated infrastructure like Java. Man, I can't have 2 desktop java based desktop apps open at the same time, it just never seems to work smoothly. The amount of horsepower on the desktop needed to run these silly apps is obscene. On top of that these bloated interfaces have so many options, I will never use 95% of them.
On the other hand, browser based apps are typically light and nimble, and, with server side scripting, all the crunching and horsepower can be handled on the backend.
Now, we've heard this all before, but what's changed? Well, EXACTLY what that article says. With the implemetation of Linux, matched with the low cost of x86 hardware, combined with grid technology, scaling up becomes easy.
As mentioned, the hardware issue has been SOLVED. The problem then becomes having the bandwidth to deliver the product to the customer. Google seems poised to solve this issue, leveraging its skill in the network devliery issues.
This is a very very sharp contrast to the past, which was what killed Sun and Oracle's attempt at doing it. In the Sun/Oracle model, you relied on huge servers which were extremley expensive, and on top of that, you had to have the staffing to take care of it, who also just happened to be hard to find and extremley expensive also.
Oracle and Sun both did well during the .com era only because companies were loaded with cash and could just buy anything they wanted. That doesn't fly anymore and that strategy which did so well for them in the late 1990s is killing them now.
Though Sun's AMD based low end servers that can run Linux, Solaris, or Windows, blow the competition out of the water. (Though these servers have only been available for literally 2 months now).
Yes there are rumors that Sun is dead and trying to get itself bought out, but I don't buy it. Fujitsu is always the name thrown around the most. They are late to the game but they are finally waking the f up and leveraging the things they are good at that can beat both Dell and HP in the low end, but where they still kill both of those vendors is in the high end.
Our company for example started with high end Sun servers, but now we are buying their low end stuff like crazy, and we get the same Sun support to cover everything. Having one umbrella over all that stuff makes life alot easier and we still retain the option to go to other vendors if we are disappointed with their product or service.
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
Originally posted by Ted Striker
The problem with alot of these desktop OSes, is ironically, bloated infrastructure like Java. Man, I can't have 2 desktop java based desktop apps open at the same time, it just never seems to work smoothly. The amount of horsepower on the desktop needed to run these silly apps is obscene. On top of that these bloated interfaces have so many options, I will never use 95% of them.
On the other hand, browser based apps are typically light and nimble, and, with server side scripting, all the crunching and horsepower can be handled on the backend.
This doesn't seem to be an inherent problem, certainly I've seen tight and light desktop applications and plenty of overblown network applications. I do agree that bloat is a bane. I typically prefer to use programs with fewer features because I have to spend so much less time finding / figuring out how to do those things I want to do.
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
Originally posted by VetLegion
Darkstar, well, I don't disagree with you very much.
2) "As apps are transfered to the servers, desktop machines can become simpler and be run on linux - Windows OS is going to lose ground."
And then we can subdivide the market into two parts, the home and the business markets, which are different.
Actually, Linux isn't going to eat much of Windows desktop, not for a long time. The reason is simple... the average business users is given something simple. Until Linux is "dumbed" down to Windoze level, it can never be a serious contender in the business world. Because no major business wants to deal with the support issues!
Then there is the problem of competing standards and soon, IP/Trademark/Copyright/Patent battles that are going to pop out. Consider that many countries in the WTO have been granting exclusive ownership of Linux to their own citizens (including, China, Indonesia, Brazil, and Australia!). The legal battles alone is going to be something when somebody finally decides to take a stick at them for doing so.
Last edited by Darkstar; September 28, 2005, 18:36.
Originally posted by DanS
And as for the headline question, it sounds like Microsoft's worst enemy is Microsoft, not Google.
This is what the economic studies have shown for years. And a line that Microsoft tried to use as a defense of why they weren't a monopoly in the US Anti-trust trial.
Jackson didn't think it counted, in case you were wondering.
Originally posted by Sprayber
I have heard a lot of terms thrown around while reading this thread and eating my burger. All I really want to know is how all of this will affect my porn?
You'll be able to store even more of it on your computer, because you will use so much bigger HDs.
Sun held a press conference today announcing a partnership with Google.
So far it's just an agreement for Sun to release the Google toolbar into their software.
But the next step, I believe, will be that Sun's office suite goes online and is hosted through the Google network.
Microsoft rose through the ranks through Office, and then by Windows. Taking down Office is a big blow.
Sun has been coveting hosting big ERP business apps like SAP.
So now the Alliance has begun.
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
Originally posted by Darkstar
Actually, Linux isn't going to eat much of Windows desktop, not for a long time. The reason is simple... the average business users is given something simple. Until Linux is "dumbed" down to Windoze level, it can never be a serious contender in the business world. Because no major business wants to deal with the support issues!
According to IBM, 10 million desktops ran Linux in 2004 -- a 40% jump from a year ago.
Originally posted by Darkstar
Then there is the problem of competing standards and soon, IP/Trademark/Copyright/Patent battles that are going to pop out. Consider that many countries in the WTO have been granting exclusive ownership of Linux to their own citizens (including, China, Indonesia, Brazil, and Australia!). The legal battles alone is going to be something when somebody finally decides to take a stick at them for doing so.
IBM has released a bunch of patents for FOSS, and elsewhere other companies are also offering patent protections.
FWIW, most of these patents don't stand up to challenge, and many of them have free counterparts (e.g. ogg vorbis for mp3). Even the USPTO has rejected MS's application of FAT patents.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Originally posted by Darkstar
Jackson didn't think it counted, in case you were wondering.
The Appellate court agreed with him.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
FWIW, most of these patents don't stand up to challenge, and many of them have free counterparts (e.g. ogg vorbis for mp3). Even the USPTO has rejected MS's application of FAT patents.
Not completely true. The majority of Microsoft's FAT patents are still currently intact. They are, however, under review.
The USPTO is being pressured to invalidate all of the FAT patents as its usage is so widespread, and it would be "too expensive" to make another. I wonder if that is a legitimate reason to invalid a patent? "Yeah, we know that Company X has the patent, but for us to pay for the usage or change our method now would just cost to much!" That just doesn't seem reasonable from a business sense, does it?
Tweet
Comment