The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
My Mac is apparently 5x faster than my PC. As I mentioned earlier, I have a Visual Studio solution that takes about 5 minutes to compile on my work PC. I wanted to know how that compared to how fast my Mac could compile that same solution, and here are the results:
PC: 5 minutes, 2 seconds
Mac: 58 seconds
Looks like the Mac wins this one. That's especially impressive, considering this was inside of a virtual machine that was using only half of the RAM and half of the processors. New PC, here I come.
I have no idea what you are saying (it seems like you are trying to make some point, but I don't quite understand it), but let me just list my configurations and maybe that will clarify things.
Computer 1. It's a PC (my work computer, and a desktop, and it's old). It has Windows 7 install natively. Visual Studio is installed on it. It has terrible hardware specs, most especially the HDD.
Computer 2. It's a Mac (my personal computer, and a laptop, and it's new). It has OS X 10.8.2 installed natively. Parallels is installed on it. I use Parallels to run a virtual machine that runs Windows 8. The Windows 8 VM has Visual Studio installed on it. The Mac has awesome hardware specs, most especially the SSD.
The obvious reason the Mac is faster is because of the hardware. I'm hoping to get a new PC at work that has comparable hardware specs to the Mac.
Ha, your Mac has a SSD!
My point was the Mac is not better "because it's a Mac" but because of something else (that you didn't told us..)
Now, that you said it, SSD, it's all clear!! ^^
As side note, sharing some personal experience, I remember finding C++ build process being very slooooooow.
Now I'm building my WinRT C++ component, assimp, DirectXTK (as all being part of some home work) and it's rather smooth, might be my SSD! ^^
They sell data (associating IP addresses with physical locations). Which you then store in your own database. If you backup your database, you must purchase an extra license. If you mirror your server, you must purchase yet another license. If you do database sharding for your databases in the cloud, each instance requires its own license.
This is the worst licensing strategy I've seen in a while.
But you are using multiple copies of the data which could be potentially used to increase the performance of your system across data centres based on regions. doesn't seem that odd. Probably cheaper than selling a license for unlimited use, as you can pay for what you need.
And what about backups? Why should I be charged more if I backup the data? And if I create geographically redundant backups, why should I be charged even more? It's not actually being used; it's just being protected.
They sell data (associating IP addresses with physical locations). Which you then store in your own database. If you backup your database, you must purchase an extra license. If you mirror your server, you must purchase yet another license. If you do database sharding for your databases in the cloud, each instance requires its own license
Excluding the back up part do you have an example of another commercial persistence store solution that doesn't require that in at least some production scenarios?
Yeah, when you give them money they let you download a ZIP file, which contains a CSV of data. You can then do your own work to import that into whatever database you want (your own database that they have no part in).
I suspect they are simply dealing with the issue of data copying in the easiest way possible
I suspect they are gouging companies of as much money as possible.
I started following astronaut Chris Hadfield on Facebook the other day. He had posted a photo of the NE of Scotland with Aberdeen central in the photo and not a cloud in the sky. He took it on the International Space Station. Since following he has been posting some amazing shots from all over the world.
Damn them. We were watching the regional news on Auntie this evening. Mrs. Wife asked me what the temps were doing tomorrow. I really didn't notice them. She came into the lounge to look at the TV and she commented that I wouldn't have noticed because I was too busy looking at the presenter's boobs. This was especially true when the presenter turned side-on to point at the developing weather front. Mrs. Wife was right; the local presenters have rather big ones and you can easily see if it's cold in the studio or not. If the presenters fell over they'd rock themselves to sleep. Thinking about it, I don't think any of Auntie's presenters are selected because their wotsits are small.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
I was watching one of the American News channels on Sky a few weeks ago (watching the updates about the snow storms), and the weather girl was wearing thigh length boots and short skirt. Must admit, couldn't tell you what the forecast was either!