Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Hmm.. (Score 5, Interesting) 664

I plan to move our company to a "dumb terminal" model over the next couple of years. You say that the cost of hardware just gets "shifted", but this is not entirely accurate. I have roughly 60 users. Each machine must be spec'd to handle the biggest workload, even if that only gets hit during some small fraction of the day. For 99%+ of the day, I have a powerful machine doing very little. With a centralized model, I can smooth that out.

But that isn't the biggest reason I am going to this model. I have folks who can be working in our central office, satellite office, on the road, or at home. I need ways to give my workforce the flexibility they need to work anywhere.

From a cost standpoint, PCs are awful. Maintenance is generally more than the hardware costs. Software installation and configuration alone costs us about 1/4 of a FTE. By centralizing, I am expecting that number to drop by 2/3.

Now, granted, my network is either local, or connected by dedicated T-1's except for our road folks. So, while I think this is a great idea for my workplace, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for me at home.

Comment Re:Meta moderation (Score 1, Informative) 477

Effectively the new system is NOT meta-moderation. I have been asked to meta-mod comments that have no moderation on them. Instead of evaluating a moderation, I am asked to simply comment on the value of the comment itself. I fail to see how the new system actually catches abusive mods.

Comment Re:IE (Score 3, Interesting) 477

Is this the price you pay for having each tab run in a separate process? Part of my frustration with firefox is that a crash in one tab brings the whole thing down. I use IE for a handful of sites that won't run in firefox, so I don't have first-hand experience. Is IE 8 able handle crashes in one tab without the rest crashing as well?

Comment Re:Is it trickery? (Score 1) 514

I think I understand your point. Basically, if I understand your implied argument, it is that the items are separate entities and should be evaluated on their own merits. One should choose the best search provider and one should choose the best mail provider and one should choose the best home page. However, this does not take convenience into consideration

I use a search engine frequently throughout the work day. The benefit with Google's page is that while I am there, I can easily see what is out there in my email. Since I am searching frequently, it is nice to see a snapshot of current emails. Were it not for this being on the page I use for searching, I would likely check my account maybe a few times a week. There are additional features that are nice. News articles that I am interested in are also aggregated. I can keep up with Scientific American, Dilbert and Chess without separate clicks.

So while I think I understand your point, in practice I like everything combined.

Comment Re:Is it trickery? (Score 4, Interesting) 514

I don't think Microsoft sponsored this article. I believe it just one of many periodic reports on search provider market share.

And personally, I don't think Bing is crap. It actually has some innovative features. I just don't have any incentive to switch from Google, especially with gmail and personalized home pages.

Would you care to tell me why you think Bing is a "piece of crap"?

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...