Very Computer

Prediction: The Windows 'operating system' will implode by 2010, given
the current rate of bloat. Starting with the web browser, more and more
applications will be integrated into the 'kernel', leaving independant
developers with scant product possibilities, generally centered around
'zip' utilities. At 135,000,000 lines of code, Windows2010 source
reaches critical mass and meltdown occurs, making Chernobyl look like a
family BBQ. 97,000 Windows2010 'e-mail administrators' will be consumed
in the conflagration.

I won't say "I told you so"

--
Good technology offers choice, poor technology removes that freedom.
--

Quote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Quote:> Prediction: The Windows 'operating system' will implode by 2010, given
> the current rate of bloat. Starting with the web browser, more and
more
> applications will be integrated into the 'kernel', leaving independant
> developers with scant product possibilities, generally centered around
> 'zip' utilities. At 135,000,000 lines of code, Windows2010 source
> reaches critical mass and meltdown occurs, making Chernobyl look like
a
> family BBQ. 97,000 Windows2010 'e-mail administrators' will be
consumed
> in the conflagration.

OK, but I'll modify the prediction slightly.  Windows code won't melt
down.  It will reach a critical mass whereby it falls back upon itself
and forms a body of circular logic so dense that any data falling into
it can never escape.

--
Alain Borel

Quote:> Could this implosion create a black hole?
> We must stop them before it's too late!

Quote:

> Prediction: The Windows 'operating system' will implode by 2010, given
> the current rate of bloat.

Ah... wait a sec...

Windows, having no quality, is unable to withstand the external
pressures, which seek out quality. It's integrity (ahaha) is compromised
and the whole thing collapses upon itself.

Talk about a stretched metaphor. Why don't we say Windows sucks and get
it over with?

I agree with the rest of it, by the way.

-andrew

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

: >
: > Prediction: The Windows 'operating system' will implode by 2010, given
: > the current rate of bloat.

: I thought implosion happened when an object's integrity collapses under
: the strain of external pressure. I don't see how this...

: Ah... wait a sec...

: Windows, having no quality, is unable to withstand the external
: pressures, which seek out quality. It's integrity (ahaha) is compromised
: and the whole thing collapses upon itself.

: Talk about a stretched metaphor. Why don't we say Windows sucks and get
: it over with?

: I agree with the rest of it, by the way.

Alas, this load of tripe is about the best that Linvocrazies can come up
with as an argument against WindowsNT... I don't know whether to laugh, or
to feel pity.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

Quote:> <snip snip>
> : > Prediction: The Windows 'operating system' will implode by 2010, given
> : > the current rate of bloat.
> : Windows, having no quality, is unable to withstand the external
> : pressures, which seek out quality. It's integrity (ahaha) is compromised
> : and the whole thing collapses upon itself.

> Alas, this load of tripe is about the best that Linvocrazies can come up
> with as an argument against WindowsNT... I don't know whether to laugh, or
> to feel pity.

I'm going to pity the poor saps who chose MicroShaft technology in the
first place. After the last two rounds of expensive upgrades, W2K is
going to cost them plenty. This from ZDNet today (disregard that ZD is
famous for M$ bashing, Giga seems to favor M$):

"Giga [Information Group] found that installing or upgrading to Windows
2000
Professional will cost approximately $970 to $1,640 per desktop system.
Installing or upgrading to Windows 2000 Server -- once the product has
been
stabilized -- will cost approximately $107 per client, for a typical
network
of 5,000 users. For an enterprise with 5,000 users, the total expected
cost of
upgrading to  Windows 2000 Professional and Server would be
approximately
$1,077 to  $1,747 per user even if an organization replaces all of its
desktop
hardware."

You do the arithmetic. Then ask yourself who really pays for it all. Not
the companies - they just calculate this as one of the costs of doing
business and pass it along to the consumer.

This will certainly make the free upgrade to Linux look awfully
attractive, especially since little or no hardware upgrade will be
necessary.

--
Good technology offers choice, poor technology removes that freedom.
--

Taking into account staff retraining, software costs, hardware costs etc.

The licensing cost is a tiny proportion of that estimate, so the money saved
simply because Linux is "free" will be next to nothing.
Additionally, the support costs will probably be higher.

Quote:> > We don't need no stinkin' pity!

> > I'm going to pity the poor saps who chose MicroShaft technology in
the
> > first place. After the last two rounds of expensive upgrades, W2K is
> > going to cost them plenty. This from ZDNet today (disregard that ZD
is
> > famous for M$ bashing, Giga seems to favor M$):

> > "Giga [Information Group] found that installing or upgrading to
Windows
> > 2000
> > Professional will cost approximately $970 to $1,640 per desktop
system.
> > Installing or upgrading to Windows 2000 Server -- once the product
has
> > been
> > stabilized -- will cost approximately $107 per client, for a typical
> > network
> > of 5,000 users. For an enterprise with 5,000 users, the total
expected
> > cost of
> > upgrading to  Windows 2000 Professional and Server would be
> > approximately
> > $1,077 to  $1,747 per user even if an organization replaces all of
its
> > desktop
> > hardware."

> > You do the arithmetic. Then ask yourself who really pays for it all.
Not
> > the companies - they just calculate this as one of the costs of
doing
> > business and pass it along to the consumer.

> > This will certainly make the free upgrade to Linux look awfully
> > attractive, especially since little or no hardware upgrade will be
> > necessary.

> What makes you think the upgrade will be any cheaper ?

> Taking into account staff retraining, software costs, hardware costs
etc.

> The licensing cost is a tiny proportion of that estimate, so the money
saved
> simply because Linux is "free" will be next to nothing.
> Additionally, the support costs will probably be higher.

Our work is sessional (kinda like seasonal), so much of the off-time
could be used to make the transition as smooth as possible. Hardware
costs are hardware costs -- they don't alter too much, and what we do
use could easily be supported under a common Linux distro.

We also do some programming on the side (we specialize in publishing),
but our major costs for Windows software limits us in our decisions to
keeping with VBA (ugh!), or spending a small fortune for a few licenses
of VB. If we had Linux, we'd have access to a bunch of free compilers,
Tcl/Tk for the user-friendly quick-fix stuff and gcc for the more
high-performance stuff. Would we have to relearn a few things? Sure.
But, since only one of us has computer science training we're learning
new things ANYWAY.

Just a real world example that shows your counterargument to be full of
bunk. Windows sucks. It limits the extent to which we can grow.

-andrew

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--
Darren Winsper - http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/darren.winsper
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org

"The Tuxomatic 2200(TM) with patented Gates-Be-Gone(TM) gets rid of blue
 screens in a flash! It forks! It blits! Look at those fantastic pixels!
 It surfs the web! You could even host an ISP with it!"
                                                -- Matthew Sachs on Slashdot

--
Good technology offers choice, poor technology removes that freedom.
--