monstermonster

9 ms·

31.
by monstermonster 12y ago
I disagree. With a generation 2 VM, I run 24 VMs quite happily on my 32Gb machine if you turn on dynamic memory. My 8Gb X201 runs 6 and Visual studio, sql server well. I haven't tried any more than that yet. As for apps, IIS makes a pr
32.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Yes we have datacentre edition and VL stuff. Small business: Use azure.
33.
by monstermonster 12y ago
What I really want to know is does this affect LibreSSL? That would be an interesting comparison.
34.
by monstermonster 12y ago
The recommended way of doing this is to use Hyper-V and multiple VMs. Windows VMs start very fast on Hyper-V. That gives you virtual LAN bandwidth control, "Storage QoS" (IOPS limits), partitioning, affinity and CPU limits. Not
35.
by monstermonster 12y ago
I think its more that they have the cash to do everything so that's what they are doing. When you do everything you are unavoidable. Not a bad strategy. They haven't lost a bit of relevance with the majority of the paying user bas
36.
by monstermonster 12y ago
We still use win32 with a light weight C++ abstraction we wrote ourselves (like MFC but better). It's not really complicated or hard. MFC+Win32+WinForms are equivalent with different wrappers. So is WPF/WinRT/Silverlight so t
37.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Yes, using the 1998 API will still work. But that API will never be worked on again. Whats this then? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn30... That's a Win32 API call added
38.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Actually no. You can take a program from the "MSDOS Encyclopaedia" which contains a windows 2.0 programming section, type it out in notepad on a windows 8.1 box, compile it and it will run now like it did in 1988. I tried it. It w
39.
by monstermonster 12y ago
I've heard that one too. Lets hope it doesn't devolve into that :)
40.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Ugh that brings back bad memories of my first ever proper job which was wirewrapping prototypes for a couple of design engineers. Was ok for the first couple of hours, then you realised why they didn't do it themselves. I built a simpl
41.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Yes 20 years no problems for windows API. Look how old the Unix API is. Not Silverlight although most of that is portable straight to c#+WPF deployed via ClickOnce with a few hours' work. We have a company that has IE6 and XP deployed
42.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Plays for sure was no different to iTunes DRM and m4p files. It died because no one wanted it. Silverlight was a dead end I agree but it is still officially supported. ActiveX is still supported. It's just COM. 16-bit apps and DOS apps
43.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Err we still use win32 and MFC. Plus some winforms which is a wrapper around win32 via the CLR. Not much has changed. Hell even WinRT is just a win32 wrapper. Office is a ball of win32 and MFC too. Absolutely no one is touching WinRT or WPF
44.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Disagree. Been building "apps" since when they were called programs for windows, Unix and Mac. Windows is the great constant, has the greatest overall power and flexibility. Unix is a mess of portability and build problems, mac ha
45.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Yeah we do that now. We store them in a big file in pages that contain rows and an externally visible network process allows us to manipulate the things. (sql server)
46.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Yes at least 20 of our clients phoned up about this as well which is funny because we don't have any Linux machines at all.
47.
by monstermonster 12y ago
We used something similar in the end I.e. SQL Server Compact Edition and sync the data with a master SQL Server instance.
48.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Perfect - thanks :) Ordered loads of stuff from HK so know about the wait. Have usually forgotten about it by the time it arrives!
49.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Thanks for the info. Where do you get them at £4 a pop? Not worried about the bootloader problems as these would be prototype only and the voltage is ok as I'm replacing a PLC implementation with some homebrew kit so it's just swi
50.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Yes. This absolutely fucking sickens me. It instantly gives news agencies an excuse to pick up every little hole and scare all the mortals into submission. Security has become a marketing and media circus now which in turn desensitizes peop
51.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Counterpoints to show that it is just a compromise: The complexity of unicode, collation, encoding, translation, language. However you're 100% right! Our application actually used text files on a network share with an indexer over the
52.
by monstermonster 12y ago
That looks like a pretty nice platform. I may have to grab one to play with.
53.
by monstermonster 12y ago
http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/ This is a slightly sarcastic point. I find the Arduino programming environment is horrible. I had to revert to straight-up C in the end and use the Arduino as a convenie
54.
by monstermonster 12y ago
I agree but I suspect that they fill the niche of the 200-in-1 electronic kits that were around in the 1970s to 1990s. They were inferior than the parts, overpriced and teach at a way higher level of abstraction than the individual componen
55.
by monstermonster 12y ago
This post reminds me of http://www.zombo.com/ FYI you can rent Excel, Outlook, Word, Powerpoint, OneNote, Access and publisher for three beers a month at London prices. That's pretty cheap and it works online and offli
56.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Where's the research that says that the connection overhead is destroying humanity? Back when we I had a 14.4k SLIP dialup and RTT of 200ms+ connection overhead and TCP channel overhead was a major drag on throughput but it's not
57.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Couple of follow ups on this one: SCTP is message oriented rather than stream oriented so this isn't really useful. The chunk size is also two bytes meaning that all your messages have to be less than 64k or you have to implement packe
58.
by monstermonster 12y ago
Huh? I think you missed something. This is nothing to do with BBS's or code abstractions. On the former, there is no OSI stack; it's terminals down serial connections. On the latter, it's datagrams or sockets. It's about
59.
by monstermonster 12y ago
That's a disingenuous and self contradictory description of how the OSI stack works. There are upwards guarantees at each layer that the stack makes. All implementations within the layer must be equal to the next layer even if one of t
60.
by monstermonster 12y ago
That's not horribly inefficient. That's the cost of doing business with HTTP. In fact you're going to have to go to the same effort to establish a TCP connection that your HTTP/2 is going to run over, then still have to

More ›