Pangloss

The only place where I've seen where you still need a floppy is for the very annoying procedure of installing a RAID driver when you install Windows off the CD. Slipstreaming is really a better way to go -- putting the RAID drivers onto a new CD along with the operating system installation files and the most recent service pack, which is considered a more secure method than hitting Windows Update after finishing installation. But sometimes you have to deal with whatever a customer gives you, etc. So every now and then you need the floppy. (Oddly enough, the Windows installer doesn't let you load the RAID driver off an IDE CD-ROM, which is just silly, since they've obviously already loaded the generic ATAPI driver at that point, or you wouldn't be looking at the Windows installer screen! IMO this is one of those areas where MS needs to learn from what the Linux distros have been doing.) (Just as another brief side note, there are a number of wonderful slipstreaming scripts out there, including one that came out with that new network security book everyone's talking about. Unfortunately I don't have the info available in front of me at the moment, but some of you may recall the book I'm talking about.)

Oh dear, tasking my MCSE knowledge here. I believe the commit charge is the amount of RAM that will be used before the page file is engaged. The number will always be something LESS than the "Available" figure (because it kicks in before you run out). Run a search in the MS KB at support.microsoft.com for more info on Commit Charge, but I don't think that's what you're looking for. I believe the amount of RAM you have currently available for use is the "Available" figure under the Physical Memory heading. The "Total" minus the "Available" would be the amount currently in use.

Wups, he said C not C++. Yeah I guess that's a bigger step than I realized. Still, it's well worth it, Cloud. In fact you'll probably find it much easier than writing C, once you figure out the class-oriented concepts. No more silly pointers.

I think those are good points as well, Dave, and we've already seen a lot of that "holdback". It's definitely a competition-maker. PP2k can open properly exported PP2k3 files, though. Also I just want to point out what you said: This is only possible because that version of OpenOffice understands the PP2k3 file format and can parse it. I don't see how you can realistically expect a program to understand a format released after it comes out. You can make a case that MS should have *patched* PP2k to understand PP2k3, and I'll even agree with you, but I'll also point out that 99% of Office users *never patch* (even if they frequently patch the OS), so they're right back where they started. I've made these points before, and I have two clients who run Linux offices. But these TCOs are based on two critical assumptions: There's nothing currently installed at that office, and no training of end users is necessary. (Yeah I know I just said that they don't care about fixed asset costs, but there's still a mental block there that has to be dealt with. The phrase "but we've already got Office, why not just upgrade" is tough to beat.) But I will agree with you that both of these issues are theoretically treatable. The training issue I try to address with a pledge to offer discounted training. But the cost of that training is still higher than it would normally be, because they figure (probably incorrectly) that they have to train more people, since none of their people know the competitive product at all. In other words, they've already got people trained on Word, why should they train them again on OpenOffice? But like I said, these are issues that can be dealt with. It's just a difficult task, that's all. This IS the fight that should be fought, and the Linux/OSA community should be focused on that kind of positive message (like your TCO info, which I've seen before), and less focused on the negative message of "Microsoft sucks". (I imagine we probably agree on this.)

I know there are limitations but you'll have to check the Express web site on that. I would guess that various data access methods are restricted. But I really haven't looked into it yet. I've been sticking with .NET 1.1 until we get closer to release, although I'll probably be looking into this pretty carefully around mid-August.

If you know C then Java should be easy, being based in part on that language. Java is very big for mobile phones and I have several Java applications on mine. It's really a match made in heaven, because the apps can be tiny and yet you still get to work in a consistent runtime environment with all the advantages of plugging into a fully formed library.

Again, what would you suggest?

Hang on, let me see if I can do something about that screen shot. It's just too big. (Edit: See note above.)

I understand your point about not being able to open documents from owners of later versions on your older versions, I just think it's overblown, and it's really not what the statements I was objecting to said. They were much broader, and I believe my corrections were fair. While I think your point is valid, I think it is just not an overwhelming reason for a business to pick OpenOffice (or whatever) over Office. And I've never known a business to make that choice on that basis. (And I've worked with a LOT of clients.) What they're interested in is cost, and I don't mean the cost of the software. See one key thing that the Linux crowd doesn't seem to get is that the cost of the software just doesn't matter. Companies actually count it as a fixed asset cost, and depreciate it -- it's insured, it's a one-time charge, and it doesn't come off the bottom-line monthly sales figures -- in other words, they're writing it off! What matters to companies, what keeps your typical cookie-cutter MBA up late at night, are *ongoing* expenses, e.g. maintenance and labor. That sort of thing *slays* projects like this, time and time again. But even so, maintenance and labor are not even the *real* killer for Office competition. The first word out of their mouth isn't "compatibility", it's "training". Do you have any idea how many people are too stupid to figure out how to use Word, Excel, PowerPoint or Access? (I've made six figures in a couple of different years from training *alone*, so believe me when I say that I know something about this.) What hurts is that you can't get training on something like OpenOffice. And you can't get training on it because not enough people are willing to install it -- because they can't get training for their employees on it! It's a vicious circle. A total Catch-22. THAT's what we need to be focusing on. When I suggest OpenOffice to a customer, it's all about cost versus benefit. It HAS to be, or they call somebody else. Usually my target scenario for something like that would be that they're several versions behind in Office (not uncommon), they don't have a lot of money to spend on infrastructure, and they're open to new ideas. Sadly, none of my Windows-based offices have taken me up on it yet. But I do try. I had some other quibbles with you (and a screen shot of PP2003 exporting to PP2000), but I think I've made my point.

I'm asking you about courses of action following the invasion of Iraq. This thread is about the current situation, which you've stated to be a failure. What I'm looking for here is evidence that some other course of action would have produced a better war following the fall of Hussein's government. If you have none, then I tip my hat to you for a nice rant, but that's all it is, and you're going to find the discussion a very short one. So, are there any courses of action the Bush administration could have taken following the change of regimes in Baghdad that would not have resulted in your assessment that we have "failed" in Iraq? Also, I respect your opinion, but how can you say that you've giving an honest assessment of the current situation in Iraq when you follow it up with that kind of ideological pre-judgement? I opposed the war as well, but I think we have to be smart about this. It's possible, for example, for Bush to be completely evil and for us to still be doing the right thing here. The world is not black-and-white; it's gray. My personal opinion is that it's going about as well as can be expected, which is to say not well at all, but it does appear to be progressing towards a resolution, even if it's not a fun trip. I have a dream that someday my children will be able to visit the ruins of Mesopotamia without a Visa. That they'll be welcomed by a friendly and grateful people who are better off for what happened. What's your dream? The problem with this country isn't that it put George Bush in power, but that it doesn't understand why it did so.

What would you suggest? Is there any conceivable course of action that could have been taken that would *not* have produced the above conclusion? If not, then what's the point of this self-flaggelation? Because make no mistake about it, this is SELF-flaggelation. George Bush certainly isn't going to lose any sleep over it, and in the end if there's blame to be dealt, there are lots of places to pass it around.

Really. Oddly enough, I feel mildly offended anyway. Oh well. Anyway, why don't you take a couple of points from that list and flesh them out the way you think they should develop. Give us some fully formed examples of what you're looking for. The content doesn't matter, it can be "pernacios hornblowers" if you like. One thing that might be useful would be to set up a unified header for each entry, like this: Name: (Give it a contextual name for discussion reference) Type: (This could be hardware, software, operating systems, applications, etc) Severity: (Set up a rating system; maybe run a poll) More? And drop a note to an admin and see if you can have the edit delay turned off for a specific thread. Discussion should probably take place in a separate thread from "the list". But I do like the idea of having it in the discussion board rather than actual wiki software, because the purpose is discussion, rather than FAQ. But it's also conceivable that the list could be constructed or added into a wiki down the road.

I think this is only really useful if you go on to explain the myths, FAQ-style. Many of the myths listed do reflect real-world issues, they're just not the issues that the user typically thinks they are. For example, Myth #15 is true -- when a computer is sitting idle it doesn't consume much power -- but that little factoid often leads to misunderstandings about power consumption, which can lead to costly errors in judgement, such as users donating time to distributing computing projects like Folding@Home or SETI@Home and then wondering why their energy bill is $300 higher at the end of the year. It's an interesting idea, though. Might be a good idea for a Wiki.

If I'm not mistaken, once they go to full release the "Express" editions will price at ~$100. The full version of VB.NET 2005 I believe will fall in the ~$300 range, with the "traditional" Visual Studio package being at least twice that. IMO that's one of the biggest problem areas for Microsoft. I applaud the Express approach, but I think it's a flaw that they look on their IDE, which is arguably the best in existence, as a profit center rather than what it should be -- an entry point in capturing and maintaining mindshare. Ah well, I guess I'm preaching to the choir here. (grin)

Yah, that's the "Academic" edition, which is a pretty good deal. I've seen it for less on the Internet -- as low as 80 bucks. If you go that route you might want to get a newer version. VB.NET 2005 is due out in a few weeks. Interestingly, you can download the final beta of that product for free, but it will expire in a few months. They also have "demo" versions that are also free but they expire as well. You can't do the old set-the-clock-back trick, but you can reinstall the OS which is sometimes an option (and good practice) for us student types. I would definitely check into the free Java IDEs, but that will mean learning a new language I'm afraid. It's worth it -- it's a very powerful language -- but it won't be the same. If your goal is a career in IT management, this is not your best option. If your goal is computer science/programming, this is the best step. NetBeans, Eclipse and JBuilder are among the most popular. I'm a bit of a NetBeans fan, and it's easy to use, but if I remember correctly lacks GUI form layout tools. JBuilder has that and uses NetBeans underneat, as I recall. Kinda going by memory here -- it's been a few months since I've used Java, but I need to dig back into it because I've got a project coming up. (sigh)

The joys of a typical "debate" with Aardvark: And the final gem:

Again, they're *not* backwards "incompatible". In what way are the current versions of Office, or any version of Office for the last 8 years, incompatible with earlier versions? How is Office different from, say, OpenOffice in this respect? These are simple questions, and if your popular mantra is true, then you ought to be able to answer them.

But NASA's *non*-involvement in Rutan's project is a big part of why it happened at all. There's no way NASA would ever approve a vehicle without triple redundancy on every safety system, and a hell of a lot more safety systems than SpaceShip One has. There are single points of failure all over the place in that thing. Not that it's really NASA's fault, I suppose. We just wouldn't view the failure of a routine space tourism flight in the same way that we view failures by the space shuttle. Private developers not only get to avoid government oversight, they also get to avoid all the emotional baggage. All they have to worry about is their OWN public image (i.e. nobody may want to fly with them if one of their vehicles crashes).

THAT I agree with. An incredible achievement, no question about it.

" ."

I've had sporadic problems recently as well, but nothing that wasn't solved by checking back in a few minutes.

I'm not convinced Rutan will solve the problem of re-entry at > 17,000 mph as easily as he handled the problem of "re-entry" at < 3,000 mph. Try that little "feather" trick at that kind of speed, and I imagine Mother Nature will just point and laugh. But he certainly seems to have a better shot at it than anybody else.

Right, which represents the first major file format change in 8 years. I meant to mention that above -- it does mean that Office 2003 apps won't be able to open those files. What will likely happen is that a module will be distributed off the MS web site that allows older versions of Office to open the XML-format files. That's what they did when they went to the last "incompatible" format in 1997. They'll also have funtionality built into Office 12 (as it's presently being called in Beta) that will let the user save in good old Office 2003 formats. A few problems, yes, I agree. But this is a pretty radical shift, so I think it's understandable. I'd really like to hear how it's different with other office-like suites. How do they add new features without preserving the output from those new features in the saved document? Do they add it into a second file? That would seem rather odd. I have used OpenOffice and I liked it just fine. I've installed it at two businesses customers I work with that were willing to try Linux (to great success). They seem happy enough with it, and I'd be happy to install it again. Whatever the customer wants, and I happily make suggestions along those lines any time I can -- the more they save, the more I make. (grin)

BTW, just as an aside, I've been teaching Office part-time since the late 1990s. I just finished teaching a class today on Excel VBA (Visual Basic for Applications, i.e. semi-programming for super-advanced Excel experts). So I get about 40 bucks an hour answering questions like these. Not that I'm always right about this stuff, of course, as my students today were happy to point out. Bloody expert-level classes.... (rofl)

I'm sure there could be bugs in there I'm not aware of -- no question about that. But no, that's not typically the case. For example, if you implant a bunch of Smart Tags in a PowerPoint 2003 presentation and then open the file in PowerPoint 2000, you just can't see the Smart Tags. (shrug) (And there's a freely distributable viewer that would let the PP 2000 owner see 'em. This is important to MS because they're trying to go after the Acrobat market, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.)