But we already have much of this now although not built into the OS. And as
an extra bonus, they don't cost an arm and a leg to get implemented.
Example: in the last Unix based system I worked with, we had to have the
COBOL compiler 'released'. It cost $10,000 not to mention the thousand of
dollars every year we had to pay in additional fees. It wasn't too much fun
working on those old systems either, having to wait in line for processor
time for compiling, working with old outdated subsystems and still paying a
fortune every year for outdated crap. And about reliability, our Windows
network was more stable than our Unix system which required reboots when
things got too heavy. Right now, I'm working with a W2K server/SQL 2000
server [same box - Big Bob] that has never gone down. As a side note, every
Unix based server with the exception of the big IBM mainframe is being
replaced by PC based Windows servers.
I run XP on my laptop and on my SSF box and my wife runs W2K on her laptop.
The problem with Microsoft and why everyone isn't upgrading to XP and I
expect won't upgrade all at once to Longhorn when ever it comes out [it's
been delayed how many times?] is Microsoft finally got a stable OS with W2K.
I have read about some of the things that are coming out with Longhorn and
yes, I will be in line to be one of the first to install it. Maybe that is a
carry over from my days as Q/A specialist where I love to try new things but
I know our company will stick with W2K and by then [too many of their PC's
are coming to the end of their life] plenty of XP users. Now I just finished
installing W2K on one of the companies [I work for one guy who has three
companies all working side by side] from Win 98 to W2K and went from having
the users crash their PC's three times a day to no crashes. Everyone is
happy, I can finally lock those users from installing all of their screen
savers and installing ActiveX controls that would hijack their systems.
Well, I guess the users have been complaining about not being about to
install their 'hunk of the day' screen savers, their special little
games,... but I just smile when they complain because I know it would be
less work for me.
Short story: Microsoft finally got an OS right with W2K and then XP. We have
already been weaned from the new OS of the year because of the delays that
we are going through with Longhorn but because of the long delays [I think
this would be the longest delay of any Desktop OS from Microsoft] I think
you will find plenty of shops wanting to bring in a few longhorn boxes to
play with. It will only be a matter of time before we will find ourselves
standing in line to get the newest and greatest from Microsoft.
Microsoft is like a drug to us geeks. Since it will a while before the new
OS is released, the groups who have successfully weaned themselves from
Microsoft are looking towards other OS's like Linux and SQO but others and
waiting in with bated breath for the new release. Maybe this is a good time
for us FoxPro developers since OS updates to the server/workstation rarely
break FoxPro. We can still be typing out code while the other guys are
trying to figure out how to fix their own upgrade issues.
I'm getting tingles right now with the thought of testing some RC for
Longhorn. Each step that we make with current releases [2003 server/XP-
W2K] we are pulling away from all of that old stuff of IBM and all of those
others they have been pushing for years.
I also remember once with the big iron where we were upping four of our
processors from something like 55 MHz to 65 MHz and it cost us over $200K.
Those days are gone.
If you find any weird statements - blame it on the sleeping pill I took an
hour ago. Feeling a little goffy. It's one of the only ways I can get a full
night sleep. I have always been getting up in the middle of the night to
'test' some new code that was brewing in my mind that had kept me up.
jeff fisher
www.turbofish.com
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces /at/ leafe DO.T com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Bill Arnold
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 5:18 PM
To: Pro Fox
Subject: Re: Letter to MSFT
Complete agreement, Steve.
I'd like to add that there wouldn't be a real, important change in OS design
until someone goes full circle and implements what IBM has had on mainframes
for decades. I'm talking about batch processing; a customer controlled
database of installed OS and application component information; performance
controls and a monitor; a real job-entry-subsystem; near 100% RAS
(reliability/availability/serviceability), and thorough documentation on
everything that happens inside the OS. And I'm sure there's a few other
things I'm not mindful of at the moment.
Windows architecture made desktop applications real and ubitquous , no
question about that, but beyond the desktop is another story altogether.
Bill
©2004 Jeff Fisher |
