|
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
After reading much of this thread, and a lot of it has been
quite insightful... I'd like to add 2 more cents. w_tom wrote: There are two ways to do as suggested. The first is to make 'Benjamins' part of the technical facts during design.... ... the technical reason for high verses low accuracy timers was provided. Computer motherboards don't have the trimming capacitor and the oscillator is subject to wider voltage variations. Why this technical decision was made was not asked and would only be speculation. So, two sides of the coin... then, there be the THIRD side of the coin. Why do you have a clock on your computer? Can't afford a watch or a desk clock or a wall clock? The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record creation/change time on files. It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000 or 6:00.00 000035 What matters is if one file was created before another. You're compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing. On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within a few minutes a day. Even if Perry Mason drags you into the witness stand and confronts you with file dates and times, approximate is probably good enough to acquit you or convict you. If in the rare case it's not, bring in your expert to explain that computer clocks are often not accurate. Wood |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
"Woody Brison" bravely wrote to "All" (15 Nov 05 09:51:18)
--- on the heady topic of " Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?" WB From: "Woody Brison" WB Xref: core-easynews sci.electronics.basics:146967 WB sci.electronics.repair:348689 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:352599 WB After reading much of this thread, and a lot of it has been WB quite insightful... I'd like to add 2 more cents. WB w_tom wrote: There are two ways to do as suggested. The first is to make 'Benjamins' part of the technical facts during design.... ... the technical reason for high verses low accuracy timers was provided. Computer motherboards don't have the trimming capacitor and the oscillator is subject to wider voltage variations. Why this technical decision was made was not asked and would only be speculation. WB So, two sides of the coin... then, there be the THIRD side of the WB coin. WB Why do you have a clock on your computer? Can't afford a watch WB or a desk clock or a wall clock? WB The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record WB creation/change time on files. WB It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000 WB or 6:00.00 000035 WB What matters is if one file was created before another. You're WB compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file WB has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing. WB On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really WB needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within WB a few minutes a day. WB Even if Perry Mason drags you into the witness stand and confronts WB you with file dates and times, approximate is probably good enough WB to acquit you or convict you. If in the rare case it's not, bring in WB your WB expert to explain that computer clocks are often not accurate. WB Wood Not only that but people sometimes purposely change the date and time on their system. For example in order to run programs that can't work past a certain date like 1999 or for some other reason. I still recall the PC and XT would accept [Enter] to the date and time question so that files would end up dated 1980... etc. A*s*i*m*o*v .... Old pinballers never die, they just flip out. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Woody Brison wrote:
After reading much of this thread, and a lot of it has been quite insightful... I'd like to add 2 more cents. w_tom wrote: There are two ways to do as suggested. The first is to make 'Benjamins' part of the technical facts during design.... ... the technical reason for high verses low accuracy timers was provided. Computer motherboards don't have the trimming capacitor and the oscillator is subject to wider voltage variations. Why this technical decision was made was not asked and would only be speculation. So, two sides of the coin... then, there be the THIRD side of the coin. Why do you have a clock on your computer? Can't afford a watch or a desk clock or a wall clock? The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record creation/change time on files. It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000 or 6:00.00 000035 What matters is if one file was created before another. You're compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing. On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within a few minutes a day. Even if Perry Mason drags you into the witness stand and confronts you with file dates and times, approximate is probably good enough to acquit you or convict you. If in the rare case it's not, bring in your expert to explain that computer clocks are often not accurate. Wood Or keep your clock set to 1935 and even Perry Mason won't know when they were actually made. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Woody Brison writes:
The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record creation/change time on files. It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000 or 6:00.00 000035 What matters is if one file was created before another. You're compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing. On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within a few minutes a day. That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized. And if the computers interact with other computers outside local control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal standard, such as UTC. This is why clock accuracy is important. In the old days when every PC was completely isolated, time hardly mattered at all, and often people would use PCs without bothering to ever set the correct date or time. Nowadays, almost all PCs have to be at least approximately synchronized to the correct time of day, and often very precise synchronization is required. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Woody Brison writes: The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record creation/change time on files. It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000 or 6:00.00 000035 What matters is if one file was created before another. You're compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing. On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within a few minutes a day. That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized. And if the computers interact with other computers outside local control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal standard, such as UTC. This is why clock accuracy is important. In the old days when every PC was completely isolated, time hardly mattered at all, and often people would use PCs without bothering to ever set the correct date or time. Nowadays, almost all PCs have to be at least approximately synchronized to the correct time of day, and often very precise synchronization is required. Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
David Maynard writes:
Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject anything that is obviously far in the past? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Mxsmanic wrote: Woody Brison writes: What matters is if one file was created before another. You're compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing. On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within a few minutes a day. That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized. And if the computers interact with other computers outside local control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal standard, such as UTC. OK, thanks, but why is it so important? A message is received on one computer at a certain time per that computer's clock. It was sent from another computer at some time, recorded in the message, per that computer's clock. Are we going to calculate transit time or something? Check to make sure it didn't arrive before it was sent? |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Woody Brison writes:
OK, thanks, but why is it so important? Sometimes you have to be able to correlate or synchronize events over long distances with great accuracy (fractions of a second). A message is received on one computer at a certain time per that computer's clock. It was sent from another computer at some time, recorded in the message, per that computer's clock. Are we going to calculate transit time or something? Yes. Check to make sure it didn't arrive before it was sent? Yes. There are many applications for accurate time. In fact, the more accurate time one can obtain, the more useful applications become practical and available. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject anything that is obviously far in the past? Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
In message David Maynard
wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject anything that is obviously far in the past? Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969. That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. -- Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak... |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Woody Brison writes: The answer is that a clock on the computer is useful to record creation/change time on files. It doesn't really matter if the file was modified at 6:00.00 000000 or 6:00.00 000035 What matters is if one file was created before another. You're compiling, but the source hasn't changed, or has; the params file has been changed since X,Y, or Z... that kind of thing. On a computer, Approximate Time is almost always all that's really needed; a clock that ***always runs forward***, and keeps time within a few minutes a day. That is true if all activity is confined to a single computer. When multiple computers are involved, however, they must be synchronized. And if the computers interact with other computers outside local control (as by communication over the Internet), then they must not only be synchronized, but they must be synchronized to a universal standard, such as UTC. This is why clock accuracy is important. In the old days when every PC was completely isolated, time hardly mattered at all, and often people would use PCs without bothering to ever set the correct date or time. Nowadays, almost all PCs have to be at least approximately synchronized to the correct time of day, and often very precise synchronization is required. In almost any instance where a high degree of precision and synchronization is needed, the computer will be running a version of NTP software which can provide precision time from even very poor CPU timebases. "Ordinary" computers don't need that degree of precision, and a once-or-twice a day comparison to an NTP server somewhere on the 'net is all that's required. Isaac |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
DevilsPGD wrote:
In message David Maynard wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject anything that is obviously far in the past? Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969. That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001. My theory: A lot of spam is sent by computers that have been taken over by spam sending viruses. Computer owners who aren't bright enough to set the time right are also not bright enough to install anti-virus software or take other precautions to prevent their computers from being turned into spam slaves, ergo lots of bad times on spam :-). P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if anyone is interested. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Tom Horsley writes:
P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if anyone is interested. Recent versions of Windows already include an NTP client. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:41:37 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Well, that's a lot of Bull ;) The company has tried to make the best of its name in English ads, often with slogans along the lines of what you give above, but it hasn't been very successful. Bull doesn't mean anything in French, so it's not a problem in France, but it's a problem in English-speaking countries. It was just bad luck that one of the original founders had a Norwegian name that by some weird coincidence happened to look just like an English word (Bull doesn't look very Norwegian to me, but maybe it is [?]). But, if they'd said, "Honeywell Bowl," they'd think you were talking about a football game. Or Chinese food. ;-) -- Cheers! Rich ------ "Hear about... The fellow who chased his girlfriend up a tree and kissed her between the limbs?" |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:44:54 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
Things that seem 'obvious' in one culture can be anything but to someone not familiar with it. I learned that one in the middle east when I went for a public toilet and found myself looking at two identically shaped figures labeling which was for males and females. The only difference was one was white and the other was black but to a westerner used to the skirt/pants distinction it was a bit of a mystery, especially when not thinking real clear due to the urgency ;) So, did you find out in time? Thanks, Rich |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:39:51 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote: In message David Maynard Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject anything that is obviously far in the past? Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969. That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001. Well, Y2K, of course. ;-) Cheers! Rich |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:44:54 -0600, David Maynard wrote: Things that seem 'obvious' in one culture can be anything but to someone not familiar with it. I learned that one in the middle east when I went for a public toilet and found myself looking at two identically shaped figures labeling which was for males and females. The only difference was one was white and the other was black but to a westerner used to the skirt/pants distinction it was a bit of a mystery, especially when not thinking real clear due to the urgency ;) So, did you find out in time? Thanks, Rich Hehe. As a matter of fact, I did. I waited outside between the two till I saw a local go in one. It was one of those things that when you find out you feel doubly stupid. Well, DUH, of course it's men-white. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Recent versions of Windows already include an NTP client.
Yea, but as with almost all attempts Microsoft makes to interoperate with networking standards, their client is badly broken (you can probably find all the rants starting from www.ntp.org :-). -- == The *Best* political site URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/ ==+ email: icbm: Delray Beach, FL | URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley Free Software and Politics ==+ |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Tom Horsley wrote:
That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001. My theory: A lot of spam is sent by computers that have been taken over by spam sending viruses. Computer owners who aren't bright enough to set the time right are also not bright enough to install anti-virus software or take other precautions to prevent their computers from being turned into spam slaves, ergo lots of bad times on spam :-). Highly unlikely, especially after you trace it. A more likely theory is there are plenty of stupid spammers. P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if anyone is interested. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Rich Grise wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:39:51 -0600, David Maynard wrote: DevilsPGD wrote: In message David Maynard Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject anything that is obviously far in the past? Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969. That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001. Well, Y2K, of course. ;-) Cheers! Rich Hehe. Sure. I did go look at the 1969 header and it had a date of something like 20450, which apparently wrapped and rolled into 1969 by the time Netscape finished interpreting it. The 2001 header was simply 2001. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Thomas A. Horsley writes:
Yea, but as with almost all attempts Microsoft makes to interoperate with networking standards, their client is badly broken (you can probably find all the rants starting from www.ntp.org :-). It works perfectly on my system. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Well, pencil and paper 'does the job' too but a text processor does it better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how one defines 'better'. Yes, but those major leaps in functionality are mostly history now. Until the next one. These days, the improvements usually involve multicolored transparent menus, or larger and fancier 3-D icons, or other bells and whistles that consume hardware and software resources but contribute nothing to the basic purpose of the computer, for the average user. I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a productivity improvement. 'Bells and whistles" are often more useful than the cynic realizes. For example, they let you know when the train is coming and to get off the track ;) Well, some people still have no computer at all and I'm building a tube amplifier. Neither says much about the state of the broader market, or people in general, as they're fringe/niche situations. The broader market (and especially the worldwide market) is only slightly beyond DOS today. You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more cryptic than I'm able to decipher. You're assuming there just isn't anything 'left to do' that can matter and I'm not willing to make that assumption. There may be plenty left to do; the problem is that nobody is doing it. Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you? Software companies tend to content themselves with adding useless bells and whistles--software bloat--to their products with each upgrade, because adding truly new features and functionality requires a lot of expensive development and involves taking serious risks. The idea is to milk existing business for all the money one can, so companies are unwilling to take risks with novelty. The bigger the company, the more true this becomes. Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the 'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating system approach. You're losing track of the issue here, which was whether an O.S. 'upgrade' can offer a significant enough improvement to warrant the 'upgrade', not whether every last soul on the planet uses it. And I was pointing out that the O.S. changes needed to take advantage of 32 bit technology, vs 16 bit technology, was a significant enough performance increase. Maybe. So what next? I don't know as it isn't my job to develop the next operating system. I'm busy building the 'next generation' tube amplifier, remember ;) To justify an upgrade, I need something truly interesting, and I just don't see that happening. The last upgrade I found _interesting_ was from Windows 3.x to Windows NT (I never bothered with Windows 95 and its ilk). You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be 'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and whistles' worth it. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-11-02, DBLEXPOSURE wrote: Good point! Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they are just ****ed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to use a computer? And then there is the occasional MAC Guy who just feels left out and is ****ed at everybody. Ever noticed how these guys are usually left handed.. Before anyone gets ****ed, is all in jest :-) BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax evasion.... I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol.... Good day... "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... PWY writes: I have followed this thread from the beggining waiting for the subject of Bill Gates' money to be introduced, as these fanatical Microsoft bashers always seem to reach that point in their arguments. A great many of them are burning with envy of Gates' wealth, and this is what motivates them to bash Microsoft. Some people cannot accept the possibility that anyone might do something better than they can, and so they insist on believing that anyone who appears to be doing better has "cheated" somehow. Many people can't accept the fact that Bill Gates became rich by intelligently managing a computer software company, because they cannot imagine how anyone could be smarter than themselves. Most of the other reasons for Microsoft-bashing run along the same lines. For example, some people find fault with Microsoft simply because Microsoft would not hire them. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. -- Bye. Jasen |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Except for spammers that routinely post years, even decades, into the past. What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject anything that is obviously far in the past? Most MUAs sort by date ascending. That puts their spam right at the top of the list. -- If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
David Maynard writes:
Until the next one. As technologies mature, breakthroughs come less and less frequently. I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a productivity improvement. It depends on what is meant by desktop. Graphic user interfaces contributed to productivity in some ways, by extending the usefulness of the computer beyond plain text, and by making multitasking environments easier to manage. You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more cryptic than I'm able to decipher. You're probably only looking at a handful of developed economies. The entire world is much further behind. Even in developed countries, there are large institutional users of computers that are still struggling with 16-bit Windows. And Windows 9x is still very common. Where I work, everyone is still on Windows 9x. Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you? I don't have to know. It's a general principle, applicable to software like anything else. Why risk billions on a new software product that may or may not succeed, when you can make almost as much by adding a few "features" to an existing produce with virtually no risk and very low cost and then charge for upgrades? Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the 'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating system approach. I suppose there are some people who look forward to things like aggressive, and intrusive DRM, or filesystems that are designed to be continually searched and indexed, but I do not, and I don't think the majority of people care. You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be 'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and whistles' worth it. Yes, I mean NT 4. Of course, XP looks uncannily like NT, especially if you peek behind the superficial user interface. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:50:12 -0600, David Maynard wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Well, pencil and paper 'does the job' too but a text processor does it better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how one defines 'better'. Sorta reminds me of the old joke ..... NASA spent millions on designing a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity (or up side down in gravity). The Russians use a pencil! -- Australia isn't "down under", it's "off to one side"! www.cobracat.com (home of the Australian Cobra Catamaran) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cobra-cat/ |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Until the next one. As technologies mature, breakthroughs come less and less frequently. I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a productivity improvement. It depends on what is meant by desktop. Graphic user interfaces contributed to productivity in some ways, by extending the usefulness of the computer beyond plain text, and by making multitasking environments easier to manage. And that was the point, along with the summary of the general principle you snipped out, that "'Bells and whistles" are often more useful than the cynic realizes." You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more cryptic than I'm able to decipher. You're probably only looking at a handful of developed economies. The entire world is much further behind. Which has, for all practical purposes, nothing to do with the matter of whether companies do 'new things', or just add 'fluff', as people who do not use the things are not in the market. Even in developed countries, there are large institutional users of computers that are still struggling with 16-bit Windows. And I can find folks in "large institutions' that don't use computers at all. You're overstating another fragment. And Windows 9x is still very common. Where I work, everyone is still on Windows 9x. Yes, and I suspected that by "DOS" you meant to include anything even remotely connected to it. Not exactly cricket as the GUI *was* the (second half) of the 'big idea' that made Microsoft what it is (and began the gist of this thread section) Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you? I don't have to know. It's a general principle, applicable to software like anything else. Why risk billions on a new software product that may or may not succeed, when you can make almost as much by adding a few "features" to an existing produce with virtually no risk and very low cost and then charge for upgrades? Sounds logical except it isn't a "general principle" and companies introduce new products all the time. Some succeed, like Apple's IPOD, and some don't. And it's pretty much the same with startups except you don't pay no mind to failed startups and they don't have anything else to sustain them when they do. Not to mention that most startups are the 'new company' equivalent to your 'modify existing product' approach, making something akin to what exists with some new 'bells and whistles' added: their 'better version' of it. Plus, it's becoming increasingly clear that you don't consider anything that even remotely resembles the existing product to be anything more than a 'bell and whistle' upgrade while I have stated that a sufficient performance improvement is my criteria. E.g. If the topic were cars it seems that nothing short of magnetic levitation would satisfy your need for "truly interesting" while I would consider a hybrid significant enough. Hell, I might even consider "rides like a car but has the payload capacity of a truck" sufficient enough because it fills a useful functional criteria regardless of not being "truly interesting." Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the 'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating system approach. I suppose there are some people who look forward to things like aggressive, and intrusive DRM, or filesystems that are designed to be continually searched and indexed, but I do not, and I don't think the majority of people care. If that were the entire feature list I might agree with you, but it isn't. Nor is the 'end user' the entire market. Compared to NT4, a fully functional PnP alone is reason enough. You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be 'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and whistles' worth it. Yes, I mean NT 4. Of course, XP looks uncannily like NT, especially if you peek behind the superficial user interface. Now, 'peaking behind the superficial user interface' really *is* something the majority of people don't care about. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
On 2005-11-19, David Maynard wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Well, pencil and paper 'does the job' too but a text processor does it better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how one defines 'better'. Yes, but those major leaps in functionality are mostly history now. Until the next one. These days, the improvements usually involve multicolored transparent menus, or larger and fancier 3-D icons, or other bells and whistles that consume hardware and software resources but contribute nothing to the basic purpose of the computer, for the average user. I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a productivity improvement. I find it lets me run 4 or 5 command-lines simultaneously. :) this morning I resized 1000 jpeg images to approx 1200 and 120000 pixels, while woring in the web site that will use them. there may be GUI tools capable of doing that in less than a week, but I haven't seen them. Bye. Jasen |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2005-11-19, David Maynard wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Well, pencil and paper 'does the job' too but a text processor does it better, and a WYSIWYG word processor does it even better, depending on how one defines 'better'. Yes, but those major leaps in functionality are mostly history now. Until the next one. These days, the improvements usually involve multicolored transparent menus, or larger and fancier 3-D icons, or other bells and whistles that consume hardware and software resources but contribute nothing to the basic purpose of the computer, for the average user. I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a productivity improvement. I find it lets me run 4 or 5 command-lines simultaneously. :) this morning I resized 1000 jpeg images to approx 1200 and 120000 pixels, while woring in the web site that will use them. there may be GUI tools capable of doing that in less than a week, but I haven't seen them. There may not be any but I never said a GUI was the ideal solution to everything. On the other hand, it would have been a real pain looking at that web site at the same time on a text command line ;) Bye. Jasen |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
David Maynard wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote: In message David Maynard wrote: snip Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969. That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001. They were sent through HAL. "Dave? What are you doing, Dave?" -- "Damn AOL. Then was the September of our discontent."- Tim Haynes, c.o.l.s, 11-30-01 |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Plague Boy wrote:
David Maynard wrote: DevilsPGD wrote: In message David Maynard wrote: snip Hell if I know but I just got one dated 1969. That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then corrected for timezone shift. Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001. They were sent through HAL. "Dave? What are you doing, Dave?" Open the pod bay doors, HAL. Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM? HAL IBM |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
David Maynard writes:
Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM? HAL IBM About 35 years ago. However, nobody has found a way to transform HAL into Microsoft, so the conspiracy theories died out with the decline of IBM. IBM provided a great deal of technical assistance in the making of the film, though. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM? HAL IBM About 35 years ago. hehe. Yeah, me too. However, nobody has found a way to transform HAL into Microsoft, so the conspiracy theories died out with the decline of IBM. So true. I wonder if anyone tried playing it backwards to hear satanic sounds? IBM provided a great deal of technical assistance in the making of the film, though. No wonder HAL went a bit loopy ;) |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
David Maynard writes:
No wonder HAL went a bit loopy ;) IBM was a good company in its time. Like so many computer companies, it first developed problems with marketing and management, and these eventually contaminated engineering departments. It's depressing to think how many major mistakes in managing computer companies have been driven by marketing and sales decisions. As one of a trillion examples, just look at Intel's marketing-driven decision to pursue inferior microprocessor architectures just so that it could run chips at faster clock speeds (thereby satisfying clueless marketroids with higher and higher GHz numbers). -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: No wonder HAL went a bit loopy ;) IBM was a good company in its time. Like so many computer companies, it first developed problems with marketing and management, and these eventually contaminated engineering departments. It's depressing to think how many major mistakes in managing computer companies have been driven by marketing and sales decisions. As one of a trillion examples, just look at Intel's marketing-driven decision to pursue inferior microprocessor architectures just so that it could run chips at faster clock speeds (thereby satisfying clueless marketroids with higher and higher GHz numbers). And it's a shame how many companies have been ruined by letting engineering make the decisions. But those don't usually get large enough to easily notice. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-11-25, Mxsmanic wrote: David Maynard writes: Ever notice that all the letters in HAL are just one off of IBM? HAL IBM About 35 years ago. However, nobody has found a way to transform HAL into Microsoft, so the conspiracy theories died out with the decline of IBM. The same trick can turn VMS int WNT (Windows NT).... the way I heard it MS got a bunch of ex-DEC people who had worked on VMS Bye. Jasen |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
David Maynard writes:
And it's a shame how many companies have been ruined by letting engineering make the decisions. Companies like Hewlett-Packard seem to have done well with engineers at the helm. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?
Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes: And it's a shame how many companies have been ruined by letting engineering make the decisions. Companies like Hewlett-Packard seem to have done well with engineers at the helm. First, I didn't say "all" and secondly, do you really think they have no marketing department or, since they do, ignore them? The real point was that single minded reliance on any one perspective is potentially destructive and that it takes a proper mix of them all. |
The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurateas cheap quartz watches?]
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
Good point! Have you ever noticed how MS bashers can usually remember every DOS command and claim to still prefer it over a GUI, How ironic is that? Perhaps they are just ****ed because MS came up with a GUI that allows normal people to use a computer? And then there is the occasional MAC Guy who just feels left out and is ****ed at everybody. Ever noticed how these guys are usually left handed.. Before anyone gets ****ed, is all in jest :-) BTW, Mr. Gates gives more money to charity each year than most of you will earn in a lifetime... I suppose some of you will consider that to be tax evasion.... I'm still not sure why my freaking clock runs slow...... lol.... Good day... So he gives more in dollars, but a LOT less in percentage of income or total worth. -- ? Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter