 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in Hardware/Software. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Looks like Microsoft's quick rise in the server department lasted only one version. |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
FreeDOS Lava Lotus Wannabe-Mod :< Level: 59 Posts: 1548/1657 EXP: 1648646 For next: 24482 Since: 03-15-04 From: Seattle Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| While most people are so excited about Windows Vista Beta 1 (aka Longhorn Beta 1), I've been checking out Longhorn Server Beta 1 (it's not called Vista, the final name is unannounced, but it's suggested it could just be Windows Server 2006 or 2007). Now let's drop out to what I implied in the title for a quick second: |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 6162/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Well it is a beta, they probably haven't got around to multi-CD versions and removing the unneeded stuff yet. However, the "re-opening" of security holes (how is that even possible?) and basing everything on .Net is completely retarded. | |||
neotransotaku Baby Mario 戻れたら、 誰も気が付く Level: 87 Posts: 3708/4016 EXP: 6220548 For next: 172226 Since: 03-15-04 From: Outside of Time/Space Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Originally posted by The Crimson ChinThe reopening of security holes...that i agree with you is stupid. As for the basing of everything on .NET--that is not a bad move. It means the .NET applications that are written will no longer need to be packaged with a .NET layer since the layer is already in the operating system. Because the layer is in the operating system, performance of .NET applications will improve a little quite a bit because the operating system is now optimized for it. Furthermore, the transition of enterprise applications such as SQL Server to .NET is a move in the right direction for microsoft if they hope to keep their business customers. Microsoft is trying to sell .NET as the solution for application building in enterprise systems. If Microsoft does not use .NET in their own enterprise applications, then something fishy would be going on yeah? In addition, by converting SQL Server and company to .NET, it makes application building a lot easier because the applications will talk the same language. Otherwise, an translation layer would have to be provided and that in turns impacts performance. Something bothers me about FreeDOS's arguments in terms of where they are based. For companies that have one server that does everything, then the issues brought up are significant. Other than very, very small businesses, who has only one server? Many companies deploy several servers in which each server takes care of only one task. So, you will have one server that is a database, another a web server, another your application server, etc. Very rarely will two different applications be run on the same server--it is not a smart thing to do because if the server goes down, you lose two applications and not just one. So I guess out of all this, it is safe to conclude the individual consumer loses out because they don't have the resources to purchase the equipment needed to run such software. However, I can understand that because Microsoft isn't catering to the individual consumer with these server and enterprise products because how many individual consumers need such software? Microsoft is making these moves for businesses who they already do businesses with and it hoping to use those people to then again the upper hand in the server market because those busineses would present solutions that use Microsoft technology. While on the topic of .NET, there is one statement I like to make: .NET is NOT an application framework for desktop applications, but rather for enterprise systems that corporations deploy for their own needs as well as the needs for other businesses. If .NET was supposed to be a framework for desktop applications, then we should see many applications nowadays written in .NET for the consumer since .NET has been out since late last decade. However, we have yet to see that, correct? Which is also why today's games aren't written in .NET--because the environment presented by .NET does not provide the speed that is required for such games. |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 6183/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Well adding .Net support is good. Basing everything on it is going to nuke performance. | |||
|
neotransotaku Baby Mario 戻れたら、 誰も気が付く Level: 87 Posts: 3710/4016 EXP: 6220548 For next: 172226 Since: 03-15-04 From: Outside of Time/Space Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Nuke performance how so? If performance were a big thing, how come many software programming positions are asking for .NET experience? If .NET performance is so fatal, than why do companies still develop with it? Saying it is because of Microsoft leverage for forcing people to develop on .NET is not correct because companies can still develop with C/C++ using other tools that are out there that are not from Microsoft. So, if you have a native .NET environment to run .NET programs, then things will run faster if everything is in the same architecture. | |||
|
FreeDOS Lava Lotus Wannabe-Mod :< Level: 59 Posts: 1549/1657 EXP: 1648646 For next: 24482 Since: 03-15-04 From: Seattle Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| .NET was a quick-n-dirty solution to legal issues with making their own Java VM anyway. It shows by how much more resources you need to run .NET than Java. Also, it's not uncommon for two or three applications to be on the same server. As long as they're small applications (eg, DHCP and DNS), companies don't feel the need to buy a whole new server just to run it. |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 6196/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| .Net is like the VB6 runtimes... Windows XP comes with them, which allows it to run VB6 programs right out of the box, but no core Windows components are based on it because adding that extra obscurity layer between the program and the OS and hardware really cuts performance. But then again, Windows Activation is a Javascript...  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Looks like Microsoft's quick rise in the server department lasted only one version. |
| | |
