This is MSSQL 2008 at work, it restars/starts a database faster than server 2008 on its own dedicated machine. Its running under WINE for a little while until we get provided with an Postegre SQL bridge by the law software developers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Executive on Apple: 'iPhone 4 Might Be Their Vista'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is MSSQL 2008 at work, it restars/starts a database faster than server 2008 on its own dedicated machine. Its running under WINE for a little while until we get provided with an Postegre SQL bridge by the law software developers.
beg to differ. my mom bought a compaq that came with vista. it got blue screens and the like every few days. it was slower than molasses. now everybody knows that compaq makes crappy computers but not that crappy. she has since upgraded to win 7 and has yet to experience a problem(its only been a month) the only problem is that the cd was used to many times so it says its not genuine but whatever that a story i cant talk about on here.
Pretty accurate description of Vista, its marathon start-up time, glacial speed at moving large files, Superfetch (sure, let's lock-up memory so that everything stutters - my experience)
Yes, less bloated, less convoluted, and, as a result, snappier.
While even early iterations of OS X were capable of handling quality graphics with Quartz and Core Graphics, all the while utilizing very little RAM or processor resources, Vista was a Pig, by comparison - we won't mention Aero.
Still, start-up went into extra innings just to load apps into Superfetch, regardless of whether or not you were going to use them.
Apps open quickly on OS X, and can remain opened without choking the system, thanks to fine memory management - this is not an issue. Besides, I would much prefer a rapid start-up, to tying-up memory for apps which I may or may not be using.
PS5 starts up in under 4 seconds - hardly an issue.
I'm simply astounded that SQL Server would actually run under WINE - since simple apps like Office often have problems.
Since you say that it does run, I assume that you are running exactly the same version of SQL Server on exactly the same databases, on exactly the same hardware, with exactly the same parameters.
Any variations in any of those parameters could make a huge difference in the amount of work necessary to start/stop a database.
Not to mention the fact that most DB admins focus on TPS and other online performance measurements - not the time to handle the rare restarts.
Since you continue to criticize the last version of Windows, does that mean that you are admitting that Windows 7 is doing everything right?
Unless for some reason the topic is on historical issues - let's compare current versions of software. Horror stories from OS9 and WinME times aren't relevant - no need to knock either OS for past problems that have been addressed in the current version.
Since a discussion of W7, in this particular thread, would be 'off-topic,' as the thread centers on the statement that the 'iPhone 4 might be their Vista,' we are discussing the problems of Vista.
Strange, that you would suggest steering the discussion 'off-topic,' hmmmmm?
In lieu of your most recent insult, one might consider it hypocritical.
The new system is on a virtualised cluster using RHEV, so performance should really be less. I can't notice the difference in terms of actual database performance, I was just using it as an example for Anuba. But damn, hell of a lot more stable than the old Win 2008/VMWare infrastructure.
MSSQL has a hiccup when running a backup under WINE, so Im taking daily VM snapshots instead. Crude, but changing to Linux is saving work a couple grand a year in Windows IT support. Its worth my extra effort waiting for this software bridge to be made when I have an extra couple grand at my disposal.
Some .Net related feature also refuses to work, but we don't use that feature so its a non-issue.
Neither did Jobs - he said, "Just avoid holding it that way."
There is a trade-off with any innovative design. Having the antennae on the outside increases reception quite noticeably, when compared to that of the iPhone 3GS.
When in an area with decent coverage, holding the phone, any which way, has no noticeable affect on the phone's reception.
When in an very low signal area, I'm willing to 'avoid holding the phone in a way which touches the tiny gap' in the same way that I'm willing to avoid holding the phone with my finger touching the lens of the camera while taking photos/video.
If this diligence amounts to too much vigilance, a case or bumper will easily solve the issue.
And I'm sure a lot of people would have been willing to put up with that tradeoff if Apple had made clear from the start that this phone has an unusually sensitive weak spot in an unusual place. As Jobs pointed out during the press conference, other manufacturers have warning labels that read 'don't touch the phone here' or something to that effect. Well, maybe Apple should learn from them, then, instead of mocking them. Apple had clearly identified the issue in their fancy labs. Yet despite spending minutes during the Keynote explaining what a wonderful new antenna design they have, they made absolutely no mention of its unique quirk, and they released promotional videos where none of the actors held the phone in the recommended way. The uproar is all about the deception more so than the reception.
Not the same thing by a medium shot or even a long shot. It's like comparing "don't drive this car into concrete walls" to "don't drive this car in the middle of a lane, always keep to the right". The former is a no-brainer that warrants no reminder. The latter is a weird industry first that no driver could possibly figure out instinctively.
Are we talking about insects now? Is there a zoological aspect to the iPhone 4 antennas that we should be aware of?
"Under 4 seconds"?
Does that come with a fine print disclaimer like "refers to Photoshop Elements on an 8-core Mac Pro with a SSD drive, after you've already started and quit Photoshop moments earlier"?
I have a MBP 17" 2.8 GHz Core2Duo (June '09) with 4 GB RAM and a 5400 RPM 500 GB Hitachi drive. Snow Leopard 10.6.4. The OS X partition is 285.48 GB, 83.53 GB free.
Total load time for Photoshop CS5 (bouncing dock icon, splash screen, main window appears, "Initializing Type Tool" completes, PS is all ready for me to use): 82 seconds. Loading PS CS5 in Win7 Professional 32-bit on the same machine takes 29 seconds.
Let me repeat that: 82 seconds. 1:22.
So please indulge me: Which supercomputer classified Mac is it you have that loads Photoshop 20.5 times faster than mine does?
I have the same machine as you, purchased it in July 2009. Photoshop is usable in less than ten seconds. When it's running from my (now pending RMA) Intel SSD it loads pretty much instantly.
I wonder if it's fragmentation of your drive or perhaps the number of fonts you have installed that's causing such a long load?
I have 312 fonts installed, don't know if that's a moderate or heavy load but there you go. I've seen worse. As for fragmentation, well maybe but isn't that supposed to be a non-issue with Macs? Before I switched to Mac, I listened to all these Baghdad Bobs in the Mac community who reassuringly stated that Macs are soooo maintenance-free and that they have a Mac from the year 1785 that's exactly as snappy as it was on the day they unboxed it and they've never ever performed any kind of maintenance. When the machine was brand new I only had CS3, but I don't recall ever having seen Photoshop load in mere seconds. Faster than CS5, certainly, but not by much. How can I determine if the drive is fragmented?
I upgraded to SL from Leopard last fall when SL was released (September?). I've done some maintenance such as repairing disk permissions a few times, two disk repairs, and manually deleted residual garbage from the library folders (root + user) due to lack of proper uninstallers, cleaned out the Safari cache... Otherwise I haven't touched the installation or performed any of those "archive/reinstall" or whatever they call it.
I rebooted and timed a few things...
Time for SL to load, from boot volume selection screen to logon prompt:
75 sec
Additional time for SL to load entirely (=from logon prompt to the moment that the hard drive stops chattering after loading login items, dock, desktop icons etc):
86 sec
Time for Safari to load (From clicking dock icon until window has appeared, the hard drive has stopped chattering and Safari is done loading the home page, favicons etc. and is 100% responsive):
46 sec
Time for Numbers (iWork '08) to load:
34 sec
Time for Flash CS5 to load (from clicking dock icon to application window and Welcome Screen appearing):
66 sec
Doing the same stuff in Windows happens in roughly half the time or less (Excel loads in 5 seconds, PS CS5 in 29 seconds etc), except the additional system boot time that happens after the logon prompt because Windows is loading the SuperFetch cache.
Edit: OK, I downloaded a demo of iDefrag and had it examine the boot volume. It says...
Fragmented files: 5062
Total files: 837170
Fragmentation 0.2%/0.6%
Avg. Frags: 1.02
Doesn't look too bad... right?
Anyway, sorry about the OT, don't mean to turn this into a 'fix my computer please' thread, but I just had to say something about the claim that Photoshop would load in 4 effing seconds.
As somebody who is responsible for the operation of a wide number of different IT systems (hosted on various flavours of Windows and *nix). I find your assertion that hosting what sounds like a business critical database on a non supported host OS that you admit has backup issues just to save a few thousand £/$/€ to be utter madness. If you do run into a problem, the software vendor will run a mile once they see your setup, and a solution will more than likely wipe out any cost savings you believe you are making.
Also, I'd love to know what horrific state the databases are in after a restore using what sounds like memory&cpu state VM snapshots. How does the alien host OS know to correctly quiesce SQL2008 when informed that a snapshot is about to be taken?
Edit: I was interested in RHEV so I went and did a bit of digging. It turns out that RHEV-M only runs on Windows server. Surely that cannot be right, Red Hat's Enterprise Virtualisation suite, which is being evangelised by open source fans has a management console which only runs on BillyG's devil box? I see talk porting the code to Java, but nothing as of yet.
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/rhev/RHEV-S.pdf
Yes, an unusual weak spot for a great majority of customers, one which has yet to affect me, either.
If Blackberry and Samsung have these attenuation warnings, I've yet to see them.
To date, we don't know the entire equation of variables and permutations which cause the apparent problem - in the Tri-State area, burying the iphone in my left hand is inconsequential.
We're still unclear as to whether or not this is due to a manufacturing defect, a software signal processing issue, or a tweak which can be applied for future production, accomplished without a re-design.
Many users claim that after the 4.01 issue, their reception issues have been solved.
Sometimes industry firsts need to be evaluated and tweaked before making specific recommendations - if a software or manufacturing adjustment can solve the issue for those having problems, then it hardly matters how you handle the phone.
We really don't know whether or not the antennae on insects function in a similar manner, in terms of inter-communication, although I imagine that they do.
If this phenomenon eventually becomes verified, it is interesting to note that insects have evolved to wear their antennae on the outside of the chassis, not the inside.
"Under 4 seconds"?
So please indulge me: Which supercomputer classified Mac is it you have that loads Photoshop 20.5 times faster than mine does?
Yes, under 4 seconds, initially. After quitting and starting again, under 2 seconds - on an Quad-core iMac 27"
On a 2.8 Ghz iMac, about 6-8 seconds initially, under 2 seconds thereafter.
Whoa! You might want to check out the health of your HD, or perhaps clean install SL - having a Cocoa app taking more than 4-12 seconds to open is unusual on SL, let alone booting SL, which normally takes 25-40 seconds. How much RAM is installed?
Because even though the hardware is identical, the device ID's are not, and therefore are not detected by Apples kext's. Dell and HP like to pull similar crap in the PC world, trying to install the vanilla drivers from the OEM more often than not does not work as the device ID's are not recognised, play with the .inf file and suddenly magic happens.
This forum post here seems to indicate that flashing a 8800GT just works http://forums.hexus.net/apple-mac/133400-mac-pro-8800gt-upgrade-bios-flash-mod.html surely Nvidia are not supplying their special Apple only chips to the general riff-raff of PC vendors?