PC's

[bakana]

Here's something that'll scare anyone who might occasionally climb on an Airplane:

21 September 2004
Microsoft server crash nearly causes 800-plane pile-up

By Matthew Broersma, Techworld

A major breakdown in Southern California's air traffic control system last week was partly due to a "design anomaly" in the way Microsoft Windows servers were integrated into the system, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

The radio system shutdown, which lasted more than three hours, left 800 planes in the air without contact to air traffic control, and led to at least five cases where planes came too close to one another, according to comments by the Federal Aviation Administration reported in the LA Times and The New York Times. Air traffic controllers were reduced to using personal mobile phones to pass on warnings to controllers at other facilities, and watched close calls without being able to alert pilots, according to the LA Times report.

The failure was ultimately down to a combination of human error and a design glitch in the Windows servers brought in over the past three years to replace the radio system's original Unix servers, according to the FAA.

The servers are timed to shut down after 49.7 days of use in order to prevent a data overload, a union official told the LA Times. To avoid this automatic shutdown, technicians are required to restart the system manually every 30 days. An improperly trained employee failed to reset the system, leading it to shut down without warning, the official said. Backup systems failed because of a software failure, according to a report in The New York Times.

Rest of the story at:

Betting your Life on Windoze

Adds a whole New Dimension to the Blue Screen of Death

[Radhil]

The Internet Service Providers (ISP) will also need to buy new machines to go on their end of the wire.

Yeah, well, that's the thing. It already took them the better part of five years and a truckload or ten of money to bring current broadband to widespread areas. No provider is going to want to go through that whole thing again unless there's more driving it than TV on demand.

Despite the Tivo craze, that's not being driven at all. Barely from the consumer end, and other than a few larks, not at all on the distributing end - not until DRM tech settles down a lot more.

So it's not really in sight. Unless you're talking in decades.

[Andrew_Swallow]

Nope, no new "Killer Apps" in sight.

There is one killer application in sight.

The real time down loading of films and TV programmes. Turning the internet into a proper broadcast medium.

Failure to get a 3 Meg TV signal down a telephone wire rated as 8 Meg (max) is embarrassing. Saving a tiny picture to disk is not good enough.

We need computers that can handle the raw modulated signal, the internet protocol, decompress the picture and sound plus handle the computer's display and load speakers. All without a noticeable delay.

We can do it with sound but not yet with pictures.

The Internet Service Providers (ISP) will also need to buy new machines to go on their end of the wire.

[bakana]

As far as the discussion about the 64 bit processors goes, it boils down to a matter of Speed & Size of programs.

A 64 bit processor can address more data.

So, the Programs you run on it can also be Larger.

What the processor actually DOES with all that data doesn't change.
Hasn't really changed much in years.

You word process.
You play with Graphics.
You play DOOM.
You might even balance your checkbook.

Nope, no new "Killer Apps" in sight.

So, a 64 bit processor is worth looking for if you are having trouble running progrmas because either the Program or the Data you are using it for are so huge they bog down the computer.

If things are chugging along just fine (Barring the occasional BSOD ),
getting a 64 bit processor doesn't confer any advantage.

Unlerss you just Like having the Latest & Greatest, in which case, Enjoy.

YMMV

[AaronB]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
But honestly...I have been with IBMC's for my whole life (save for a short run in 5th and 6th grades.) I'd have to learn the whole process and stuff.

To give yourself an idea about the Mac OS (which really is excellent) and how it would work for you, I suggest that you take a trip to the nearest Apple Store to play with one. That is what I did when I made the switch a little over a year ago.

In the end it is all about personal choice. If you play with the Mac a bit and are not comfortable, then go with a PC. But to just dismiss the Mac out of hand without even trying it is just short changing yourself.

[Dr Maturin]

Originally posted by Capt.Montoya
But have you ever used Macintosh computers?
An interesting thing to note is that the Microsoft Office apps started life as Mac applications... DOS was not ready for such a graphical interface.
I started using Macs with System 6... it was much easier to use and understand than Windows, and wasn't limited to 8 character file names...
I've used Windows 3.1 and subsequent versions. The Mac OS way has always been more logical to me.
Only until Windows 95 did Microsoft approach the level of development of the Mac OS interface.
I became quite proficient in Windows too (enough to do basic troubleshooting for friends and coworkers)... but only because I started on a Mac, and had to learn to find and use the equivalent functions, settings and control panels in Windows (when available or not so deeply hidden or badly implemented that they were useless). But figuring out the "logic" behind Windows has always been frustrating compared to how things simply work in MacOS.
OS X is simply put a great and stable operating system that has had several updates since its introduction... while Longhorn is coming later and later.

Well, I have always heard bad stuff about Mac and when the Grand Ali JMS says Mac is bad...it MUST be true!

But honestly...I have been with IBMC's for my whole life (save for a short run in 5th and 6th grades.) I'd have to learn the whole process and stuff.

[Capt.Montoya]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
No...I am just on Gates' side. I like him. I dislike Apple and Mac and always have.

But have you ever used Macintosh computers?
An interesting thing to note is that the Microsoft Office apps started life as Mac applications... DOS was not ready for such a graphical interface.
I started using Macs with System 6... it was much easier to use and understand than Windows, and wasn't limited to 8 character file names...
I've used Windows 3.1 and subsequent versions. The Mac OS way has always been more logical to me.
Only until Windows 95 did Microsoft approach the level of development of the Mac OS interface.
I became quite proficient in Windows too (enough to do basic troubleshooting for friends and coworkers)... but only because I started on a Mac, and had to learn to find and use the equivalent functions, settings and control panels in Windows (when available or not so deeply hidden or badly implemented that they were useless). But figuring out the "logic" behind Windows has always been frustrating compared to how things simply work in MacOS.
OS X is simply put a great and stable operating system that has had several updates since its introduction... while Longhorn is coming later and later.

[Dr Maturin]

Originally posted by thebaron
Care to elaberate on that? There are many apps available for OSX that have an eqilivant on Windows. Office is one example. In fact the version of Office on the Mac is better (IMO) the the windows version.

In case you are wondering, I use both a Mac (Personal use) and a Windows (work) machine.

No...I am just on Gates' side. I like him. I dislike Apple and Mac and always have.

[AaronB]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
<<Have you considered a Mac?>>

I am Bill Gates' bitch.

Care to elaberate on that? There are many apps available for OSX that have an eqilivant on Windows. Office is one example. In fact the version of Office on the Mac is better (IMO) the the windows version.

In case you are wondering, I use both a Mac (Personal use) and a Windows (work) machine.

[DougO]

Originally posted by bakana
If I were going to lay out That much for a monitor, I'd go a few more dolars and get a Projector.
One that doubles as a computer monitor and TV monitor.
Some of them are already cheaper than a 54 inch Box TV.

That would be an interesting setup if you could arrange to have your computer desk in front of the screen. You would need a room where you could control the ambient light to avoid washing out the screen. A setup like that could be great for gaming.

For me, I'm going to stick to LCD panels. I actually run triple-mon (3 monitors) on my main system. The center monitor is the above mentioned 2001FP 1600X1200 and then I have a 1280X1024 monitor on each side. I'm a software developer and the extra desktop space is very useful for running debuggers, remote consoles, output windows, documentation, etc. If you have to debug two or more applications simultaneously (e.g., client and server) the extra space is very valuable.

-DougO

[bakana]

Dell ocassionally has this monitor on sale for $799 which is a real steal.

If I were going to lay out That much for a monitor, I'd go a few more dolars and get a Projector.
One that doubles as a computer monitor and TV monitor.
Some of them are already cheaper than a 54 inch Box TV.

And the projectors range from 7 foot to 30 foot max screens, depending on your budget.

A 7 foot monitor & TV. I could live with that.

[Radhil]

Longhorne is coming.

And it can stay that way too for all I care. Up until last month, I was still running Win98. I expect WinXP to last me as long as that did.

Or by then I'll have figured out this Linux thing.

[cruiser]

Right now the only Intel 64 bit processors are the Xeon series. AMD offers the AMD 64 processor. I shy from AMD because of my previous experiences with them. But I am an old dinosaur and stuck in my ways. The technical specs I just looked at show the AMD processor to be much more capable than the Intel P4's that are currently available.

[DougO]

When I don't build a system from scratch, I typically buy Dell. I've had good luck with both Dell desktop and server machines.

One thing to look out for is over priced memory from Dell. I typically buy the minumum amount of RAM with a Dell and then add more at about half of Dell's price.

I reciently bought a couple of the Dell 2001FP 20" flat panel monitors. The native resolution is 1600X1200 and the average pixel response is 16ms (which is great for gaming). The display clarity is outstanding and I'm really happy with them. Dell ocassionally has this monitor on sale for $799 which is a real steal.

Also, before buying check out a site like http://www.xpbargains.com/dell_coupons to make sure you're taking advantage of the available coupons. Dell is constantly offering specials on their hardware.

-DougO

[Dr Maturin]

So a P4 can't be 64? I am fuzzy on this processor thing.