That's classical. :DQuote:
Originally posted by techyspecy
Software don;t make people dude, people make 'em.
Well said though.
Printable View
That's classical. :DQuote:
Originally posted by techyspecy
Software don;t make people dude, people make 'em.
Well said though.
This thread reminds me of this one:
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...ighlight=Kazaa
End user posts a screen shot of kazaa with all the porn and illegal software downloads online..than tries to cover it up. Woka's reply was hillarious...good sh**
A must read for all.
Jon
I thought nothing outlasted the energizer rabbit...apparently you do. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Pirate
Talking about time wasting , I better go and leave this thread to be thrown in chit-chat forum , since you made it more dirty with some stupid posts . lol
No probs...your stupidity was pleasing on a saturday morning at work writing MS Code :).
Jon
Look who's talking. :DQuote:
Originally posted by jhermiz
I thought nothing outlasted the energizer rabbit...apparently you do. :D
No probs...your stupidity was pleasing on a saturday morning at work writing MS Code :).
Jon
Well i have a reason too :-) Im not blurting out stupid ****...Im making a point about people who USE VB6, .NET, C#, J#, etc than complain about it. Than they complain about MS making money...but with their infinite wisdom post a reply saying they steal software. Thats downright hillarious.Quote:
Originally posted by spoiledkid
Look who's talking. :D
:D
spoiledkid , people refered in the above post meant to be Pirate . I don't care about that though , as long as I'm enjoying *to somehow* .Quote:
Originally posted by jhermiz
Well i have a reason too :-) Im not blurting out stupid ****...Im making a point about people who USE VB6, .NET, C#, J#, etc than complain about it. Than they complain about MS making money...but with their infinite wisdom post a reply saying they steal software. Thats downright hillarious.
:D
Wrong...see previous post with thread link to your brother.Quote:
Originally posted by Pirate
spoiledkid , people refered in the above post meant to be Pirate . I don't care about that though , as long as I'm enjoying *to somehow* .
:D
Dude , do you mean Woka's list . I'm so happy to be among those guys . :D :DQuote:
Originally posted by jhermiz
Wrong...see previous post with thread link to your brother.
:D
Dazed and confused...Quote:
Originally posted by Pirate
Dude , do you mean Woka's list . I'm so happy to be among those guys . :D :D
Jon
15 year olds are so easy to spot nowadays...
Hey I just got VB Ent. Arch. 2003 and it roxors my soxors. I mean it's great, granted it has syntax changes vs. VB6 but i like it. Anyway it has a promotion to get a free palm pilot. And like was said before they provide you with a ton of reference material, I've learned a lot from the MSDN and I'm gonna buy the books too. So in the end I like microsoft, don't hate just because they were smart enough to corner the market and squeeze money out of people, I wish I was as smart.
Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn N
15 year olds are so easy to spot nowadays...
Ya and Java is for cell phone games only :rolleyes:
Jon
A lot hate MS because of their monopoly .Quote:
Originally posted by Supreme Cookie
Hey I just got VB Ent. Arch. 2003 and it roxors my soxors. I mean it's great, granted it has syntax changes vs. VB6 but i like it. Anyway it has a promotion to get a free palm pilot. And like was said before they provide you with a ton of reference material, I've learned a lot from the MSDN and I'm gonna buy the books too. So in the end I like microsoft, don't hate just because they were smart enough to corner the market and squeeze money out of people, I wish I was as smart.
I do not hate MS for there monopoly or money making things ... I just have a problem with these policies related to software division. This new version every 2 years thing is driving me bananas. :p Corporate companies are going broke just upgrading these software/infrastructure/people all the time. This all does not come for free, it takes a heavy cost. And by the time you are done upgrading all this .. what you just upgraded is gone obsolete. I mean *** ..Quote:
Originally posted by Pirate
A lot hate MS because of their monopoly .
No, nothing says a business is required to update every two years. They can keep chugging along using windows 98 if they want. MS doesn't force you to upgrade. What they do do, is entice the companies to upgrade. Think about upgrading from NT to 2000 for Active Directory, stability, etc... almost every IT person wants the computers upgraded because of the added features that make their lives easier.Quote:
Originally posted by techyspecy
I do not hate MS for there monopoly or money making things ... I just have a problem with these policies related to software division. This new version every 2 years thing is driving me bananas. :p Corporate companies are going broke just upgrading these software/infrastructure/people all the time. This all does not come for free, it takes a heavy cost. And by the time you are done upgrading all this .. what you just upgraded is gone obsolete. I mean *** ..
BUT, if everything is working just fine, why would the business upgrade? If they are upgrading just to upgrade, well, that business needs its money taken away. If they are upgrading for the right reasons, it will save them money in the long run.
Also, take into account VS.Net 2003 upgrade (since we are on a programming forum). If you bought 2002 version, an upgrade is only 29 bucks for each license. That is probably just a little more or a little less than their average programmers wages for an hour. So they only have to pay the equivalent of one more hour for each programmer using VS.Net to upgrade. Seems pretty small IMO. Still, the company doesn't have to get 2003 for their programmers, it isn't a requirement for them to turn out .Net applications. It is their decision, and one that needs to be calculated out on paper as to whether it is a good investment for the company or not.
Either side of the fence you sit on, you have to understand the MS plays their pricing game just right. If they charged too much, wouldn't they be losing lots of money due to sales dropping off? They know what they are doing, and hopefully your business is also working the bottom line to figure out whether or not the upgrades are worth it.
Finally someone with common sense....I completly agree with this 100%. Thanks.Quote:
Originally posted by hellswraith
No, nothing says a business is required to update every two years. They can keep chugging along using windows 98 if they want. MS doesn't force you to upgrade. What they do do, is entice the companies to upgrade. Think about upgrading from NT to 2000 for Active Directory, stability, etc... almost every IT person wants the computers upgraded because of the added features that make their lives easier.
BUT, if everything is working just fine, why would the business upgrade? If they are upgrading just to upgrade, well, that business needs its money taken away. If they are upgrading for the right reasons, it will save them money in the long run.
Also, take into account VS.Net 2003 upgrade (since we are on a programming forum). If you bought 2002 version, an upgrade is only 29 bucks for each license. That is probably just a little more or a little less than their average programmers wages for an hour. So they only have to pay the equivalent of one more hour for each programmer using VS.Net to upgrade. Seems pretty small IMO. Still, the company doesn't have to get 2003 for their programmers, it isn't a requirement for them to turn out .Net applications. It is their decision, and one that needs to be calculated out on paper as to whether it is a good investment for the company or not.
Either side of the fence you sit on, you have to understand the MS plays their pricing game just right. If they charged too much, wouldn't they be losing lots of money due to sales dropping off? They know what they are doing, and hopefully your business is also working the bottom line to figure out whether or not the upgrades are worth it.
Jon
well put :cool:Quote:
Originally posted by jhermiz
Finally someone with common sense....I completly agree with this 100%. Thanks.
Jon
I wish the things work the way you think they do !!!!Quote:
Originally posted by hellswraith
No, nothing says a business is required to update every two years. They can keep chugging along using windows 98 if they want. MS doesn't force you to upgrade. What they do do, is entice the companies to upgrade. Think about upgrading from NT to 2000 for Active Directory, stability, etc... almost every IT person wants the computers upgraded because of the added features that make their lives easier.
BUT, if everything is working just fine, why would the business upgrade? If they are upgrading just to upgrade, well, that business needs its money taken away. If they are upgrading for the right reasons, it will save them money in the long run.
Also, take into account VS.Net 2003 upgrade (since we are on a programming forum). If you bought 2002 version, an upgrade is only 29 bucks for each license. That is probably just a little more or a little less than their average programmers wages for an hour. So they only have to pay the equivalent of one more hour for each programmer using VS.Net to upgrade. Seems pretty small IMO. Still, the company doesn't have to get 2003 for their programmers, it isn't a requirement for them to turn out .Net applications. It is their decision, and one that needs to be calculated out on paper as to whether it is a good investment for the company or not.
Either side of the fence you sit on, you have to understand the MS plays their pricing game just right. If they charged too much, wouldn't they be losing lots of money due to sales dropping off? They know what they are doing, and hopefully your business is also working the bottom line to figure out whether or not the upgrades are worth it.
I work for a fortune 500 company. We are very profitable..we dont need .NET / XP / any new technology thats out there.Quote:
Originally posted by techyspecy
I wish the things work the way you think they do !!!!
What is it that you don't understand about this whole thread? You seem to think your business or workplace has to run inline with MS? Maybe you need a complete restructure of your organization..cause either you or someone where you work is spending too much money.
Jon
Yeah right :D, I needed this suggestion.Quote:
Originally posted by jhermiz
I work for a fortune 500 company. We are very profitable..we dont need .NET / XP / any new technology thats out there.
What is it that you don't understand about this whole thread? You seem to think your business or workplace has to run inline with MS? Maybe you need a complete restructure of your organization..cause either you or someone where you work is spending too much money.
Jon
*shrug* I'm not suggesting anything...I'm telling you...whatever you or your business is doing .. someone is doing something wrong. If you guys are updating everytime MS updates..something is wrong. Its like a little kid and a toy store..every time the toy store gets a new toy the kid's parents buy him that toy? When does that ever happen? Should that happen?Quote:
Originally posted by techyspecy
Yeah right :D, I needed this suggestion.
Come on .. dont tell me you're struggling because of MS technology.
Realistically speaking all businesses operate like this..NOT just MS. Think about it..do you think NIKE the makers of sports shoes / appareal is going to leave the same line of shoes for one year? Of course not..you buy a set of Michael Jordan nike bball shoes and guess what..2 weeks later there's a better nike shoe out there. Are you going to spend the money 2 weeks later after you already spent 100 bucks...probably NOT. Televisions..you buy a nice HDTV one week..and the next week you go back to your local best buy / circuit city and theyve got flat panel HDTV's for only 10k more. Do you buy that a week later? Again probably not. MS is the same way..they are in the software industry...they too need to make money...if they don't have software coming out how is the company going to make a return on investment or any profit if we're in 2003 and they still have windows 98.
Puhleaseeeeeeeeeeee
Jon
First of all I am not struggling, its the corporate companies. Secondly don;t tell me these things as if I am a little kid. I don;t know the work culture in US, but every where else ( and I mean it ) companies are struggling. For instance my company bought RPG 3 ( thats AS/400 version 3 ) in 1991 and they have just now upgraded to RPG 4 ( RPG ILE ) in 2003. All functions of RPG 3 are still supported in RPG 4 ( same goes for JAVA ). This kind of upgradation is fine and can be justified. Not like MS releases VB 6 in 98 and .NET in 2001. What the heck is that ..... . Now all programmers in the company are crying for .NET ( after all nobody want to be left behind in any way ), and management cannot justify such upgradation ... ( they are also right to some extent ) and the WAR is going on whether to choose JAVA path or MS path .... This is absolutely ridiculous. Furthurmore, you tell me how much of VB 6 is still supported in VB. NET ???? :confused: :mad:Quote:
Originally posted by jhermiz
*shrug* I'm not suggesting anything...I'm telling you...whatever you or your business is doing .. someone is doing something wrong. If you guys are updating everytime MS updates..something is wrong. Its like a little kid and a toy store..every time the toy store gets a new toy the kid's parents buy him that toy? When does that ever happen? Should that happen?
Come on .. dont tell me you're struggling because of MS technology.
Realistically speaking all businesses operate like this..NOT just MS. Think about it..do you think NIKE the makers of sports shoes / appareal is going to leave the same line of shoes for one year? Of course not..you buy a set of Michael Jordan nike bball shoes and guess what..2 weeks later there's a better nike shoe out there. Are you going to spend the money 2 weeks later after you already spent 100 bucks...probably NOT. Televisions..you buy a nice HDTV one week..and the next week you go back to your local best buy / circuit city and theyve got flat panel HDTV's for only 10k more. Do you buy that a week later? Again probably not. MS is the same way..they are in the software industry...they too need to make money...if they don't have software coming out how is the company going to make a return on investment or any profit if we're in 2003 and they still have windows 98.
Puhleaseeeeeeeeeeee
Jon
I dont agree at all. Your business logic should not rely on the software so much. It should rely on the fact that you have a good mindset on how to perform the business using technology..whether it be Java, MS, Plain ol C etc etc. You can write business logic through Pascal for all I care. The point is to write the software in a flexible way so that changes dont impact the business. Your business should not be worried too much about .NET / VB6...if they are than like I have said something is wrong..they should have thought of this from the get go.Quote:
Originally posted by techyspecy
First of all I am not struggling, its the corporate companies. Secondly don;t tell me these things as if I am a little kid. I don;t know the work culture in US, but every where else ( and I mean it ) companies are struggling. For instance my company bought RPG 3 ( thats AS/400 version 3 ) in 1991 and they have just now upgraded to RPG 4 ( RPG ILE ) in 2003. All functions of RPG 3 are still supported in RPG 4 ( same goes for JAVA ). This kind of upgradation is fine and can be justified. Not like MS releases VB 6 in 98 and .NET in 2001. What the heck is that ..... . Now all programmers in the company are crying for .NET ( after all nobody want to be left behind in any way ), and management cannot justify such upgradation ... ( they are also right to some extent ) and the WAR is going on whether to choose JAVA path or MS path .... This is absolutely ridiculous. Furthurmore, you tell me how much of VB 6 is still supported in VB. NET ???? :confused: :mad:
Either way these are our opinions so I respect yours although I dont agree with it.
Im done :)
Jon
So Am I ....Quote:
Originally posted by jhermiz
Im done :)
Jon
You're looking too closely at things though.Quote:
Originally posted by techyspecy
Not like MS releases VB 6 in 98 and .NET in 2001
Microsoft never pretended that VB.NET would use the same syntax or anything as VB6.
Its like when people went from leaded petrol to unleaded petrol.
Yes it was a bit change for engines at the time.
But it was just that one set of changes.
Every unleaded petrol engine since then works on the same basic ideas.
Most if not all Microsoft products are backwards compatible.
There are a few cases where, due to huge technology advances, they aren't backwards compatible.
For example Exchange 5.5 > Exchange 2000 etc.
But for the mostpart Microsoft do a good job of things...
I do not know what backward compatibility are you talking about ... but on my machine, i upgraded from MSXML 3 to MSXML 4 and my code did not work. I had to go back to MSXML 3. Backward compatibility is nothing but fun in MS products ...Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
You're looking too closely at things though.
Microsoft never pretended that VB.NET would use the same syntax or anything as VB6.
Its like when people went from leaded petrol to unleaded petrol.
Yes it was a bit change for engines at the time.
But it was just that one set of changes.
Every unleaded petrol engine since then works on the same basic ideas.
Most if not all Microsoft products are backwards compatible.
There are a few cases where, due to huge technology advances, they aren't backwards compatible.
For example Exchange 5.5 > Exchange 2000 etc.
But for the mostpart Microsoft do a good job of things...
And don;t compare petrol with this industry. This is probably the only difference between petrol pump emplyee's and us. And petrol does not change every 2 years.