|
|
Post by the light works on May 22, 2022 0:46:10 GMT
more specifically, NASA has gotten out of the space taxi business to free up resources for further ventures - and to hand over the space taxi business to private enterprise. In the past, NASA paid private industry to do it. Now, NASA is paying private industry to do it. Just a little different business model. no, in the past NASA used their equipment to deliver things to space for private companies at below cost. now they're letting private companies deliver their things to space, along with other companies things to space. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 22, 2022 2:23:35 GMT
In the past, NASA paid private industry to do it. Now, NASA is paying private industry to do it. Just a little different business model. no, in the past NASA used their equipment to deliver things to space for private companies at below cost. now they're letting private companies deliver their things to space, along with other companies things to space. NASA made very little of the early flight hardware. They contracted it out to private companies including Boeing. Now, they are letting private companies pay for and build their own hardware and just paying on a per use basis. NASA is still paying the bill, but like I said, it's a different business model. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 22, 2022 2:30:26 GMT
Only so many updates you can do to an old design before you turn it into an Edsel. as I recall, the edsel was a 100% new design. and wasn't actually that bad a design, just not one the average consumer liked. Many roads can lead to an Edsel. I think Boeing's customers weren't too happy with the MAX when they discovered that it really wasn't like their fathers 737, as Boeing advertised it to be. Even saying it was so much the same that it didn't even require additional pilot training. 346 people died as a result of that lie. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 22, 2022 14:01:55 GMT
as I recall, the edsel was a 100% new design. and wasn't actually that bad a design, just not one the average consumer liked. Many roads can lead to an Edsel. I think Boeing's customers weren't too happy with the MAX when they discovered that it really wasn't like their fathers 737, as Boeing advertised it to be. Even saying it was so much the same that it didn't even require additional pilot training. 346 people died as a result of that lie. actually, a lot of Boeing customers seem to be happy with their MAX, now that the bugs have been ironed out. my point is that the MAX is more of a windows Vista than an Edsel. the 717 is probably a better candidate for being Boeing's edsel. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 22, 2022 14:12:55 GMT
Many roads can lead to an Edsel. I think Boeing's customers weren't too happy with the MAX when they discovered that it really wasn't like their fathers 737, as Boeing advertised it to be. Even saying it was so much the same that it didn't even require additional pilot training. 346 people died as a result of that lie. actually, a lot of Boeing customers seem to be happy with their MAX, now that the bugs have been ironed out. my point is that the MAX is more of a windows Vista than an Edsel. the 717 is probably a better candidate for being Boeing's edsel. At this point, the MAX is probably the safest plane in the skys. I wouldn't hesitate to get on one. Edsel was more a marketing disaster rather than a bad vehicle. Vista was just a disaster. Then the Microsoft engineers said; "Here, Hold my beer" and came out with Windows 8. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 22, 2022 14:59:09 GMT
actually, a lot of Boeing customers seem to be happy with their MAX, now that the bugs have been ironed out. my point is that the MAX is more of a windows Vista than an Edsel. the 717 is probably a better candidate for being Boeing's edsel. At this point, the MAX is probably the safest plane in the skys. I wouldn't hesitate to get on one. Edsel was more a marketing disaster rather than a bad vehicle. Vista was just a disaster. Then the Microsoft engineers said; "Here, Hold my beer" and came out with Windows 8. actually, both Microsoft AND Intel have a pattern of turning out a new product, then fixing the problems and releasing the working product a bit later. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 22, 2022 16:06:16 GMT
At this point, the MAX is probably the safest plane in the skys. I wouldn't hesitate to get on one. Edsel was more a marketing disaster rather than a bad vehicle. Vista was just a disaster. Then the Microsoft engineers said; "Here, Hold my beer" and came out with Windows 8. actually, both Microsoft AND Intel have a pattern of turning out a new product, then fixing the problems and releasing the working product a bit later. Yeah, especially Microsoft. I haven't really followed the PC processor developments that closely. Most of my experience with processors are more the embedded types such a PICs, ESP-32's, that sort of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 23, 2022 15:29:41 GMT
At this point, the MAX is probably the safest plane in the skys. I wouldn't hesitate to get on one. Edsel was more a marketing disaster rather than a bad vehicle. Vista was just a disaster. Then the Microsoft engineers said; "Here, Hold my beer" and came out with Windows 8. actually, both Microsoft AND Intel have a pattern of turning out a new product, then fixing the problems and releasing the working product a bit later. What's the old saying? "The last generation of an old product is usually better than the first generation of its replacement"? By the time something is "old" enough that people seriously consider replacing it in full, it's been around long enough that people have usually figured out and resolved most of the major issues, or at least put warnings in place indicating what *not* to do. In contrast, something that's brand-new has yet to undergo full customer-testing, meaning that the various bugs, flaws, and other issues which the initial factory and field testing didn't pick up are still present and waiting for the end user to discover the hard way. In extreme instances, you can have situations where the new item will be such a disaster that customers will return to the old product because they at least know it works, like how people stuck with Windows 7 because Vista was such a troubled operating system. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 23, 2022 16:12:22 GMT
In extreme instances, you can have situations where the new item will be such a disaster that customers will return to the old product because they at least know it works, like how people stuck with Windows 7 because Vista was such a troubled operating system. Vista came before Windows 7. It was a replacement for Windows XP. Windows 7 eventually replaced Vista. People stuck with 7 because Windows 8 was such a POS. After many revisions and upgrades, W8 finally got to the point that it was usable but the public's confidence in it was so bad that Microsoft did a few more upgrades and rebranded it Windows 10. While people seemed to accept 10, Microsoft decided to once again come out with a new OS and called it Windows 11. W11 doesn't seem to be very well accepted. I think it's more for the way MS is selling it than it's actual capabilities. Their marketing strategy is "you will buy what we sell you and like it, or else." Not that that's anything new. Just for the record, I'm still using Windows 7 on my 3 main business computers and will continue to do so until the hardware finally fails. I have 3 newer systems that run W10 but they aren't used for any mission critical applications. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 23, 2022 16:35:33 GMT
actually, both Microsoft AND Intel have a pattern of turning out a new product, then fixing the problems and releasing the working product a bit later. What's the old saying? "The last generation of an old product is usually better than the first generation of its replacement"? By the time something is "old" enough that people seriously consider replacing it in full, it's been around long enough that people have usually figured out and resolved most of the major issues, or at least put warnings in place indicating what *not* to do. In contrast, something that's brand-new has yet to undergo full customer-testing, meaning that the various bugs, flaws, and other issues which the initial factory and field testing didn't pick up are still present and waiting for the end user to discover the hard way. In extreme instances, you can have situations where the new item will be such a disaster that customers will return to the old product because they at least know it works, like how people stuck with Windows 7 because Vista was such a troubled operating system. 7 was the corrected version of vista. XP was the predecessor serious users stuck with because they liked it better. casuals got along fine with Vista, because as long as you didn't try to micromanage it, it did okay. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 23, 2022 16:36:55 GMT
In extreme instances, you can have situations where the new item will be such a disaster that customers will return to the old product because they at least know it works, like how people stuck with Windows 7 because Vista was such a troubled operating system. Vista came before Windows 7. It was a replacement for Windows XP. Windows 7 eventually replaced Vista. People stuck with 7 because Windows 8 was such a POS. After many revisions and upgrades, W8 finally got to the point that it was usable but the public's confidence in it was so bad that Microsoft did a few more upgrades and rebranded it Windows 10. While people seemed to accept 10, Microsoft decided to once again come out with a new OS and called it Windows 11. W11 doesn't seem to be very well accepted. I think it's more for the way MS is selling it than it's actual capabilities. Their marketing strategy is "you will buy what we sell you and like it, or else." Not that that's anything new. Just for the record, I'm still using Windows 7 on my 3 main business computers and will continue to do so until the hardware finally fails. I have 3 newer systems that run W10 but they aren't used for any mission critical applications. I think people are seeing W11 as unnecessary to upgrade to. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 23, 2022 16:57:05 GMT
Vista came before Windows 7. It was a replacement for Windows XP. Windows 7 eventually replaced Vista. People stuck with 7 because Windows 8 was such a POS. After many revisions and upgrades, W8 finally got to the point that it was usable but the public's confidence in it was so bad that Microsoft did a few more upgrades and rebranded it Windows 10. While people seemed to accept 10, Microsoft decided to once again come out with a new OS and called it Windows 11. W11 doesn't seem to be very well accepted. I think it's more for the way MS is selling it than it's actual capabilities. Their marketing strategy is "you will buy what we sell you and like it, or else." Not that that's anything new. Just for the record, I'm still using Windows 7 on my 3 main business computers and will continue to do so until the hardware finally fails. I have 3 newer systems that run W10 but they aren't used for any mission critical applications. I think people are seeing W11 as unnecessary to upgrade to. I think many people were perfectly happy with 7 until MS stopped all the security support for it. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 23, 2022 19:45:01 GMT
Personally, I'm fine with 8.
I've gotten it more or less figured out, and am actually hesitant to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 23, 2022 19:58:01 GMT
Personally, I'm fine with 8. I've gotten it more or less figured out, and am actually hesitant to upgrade. If it’s working for you, by all means keep it. For me, it was nothing but trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 24, 2022 0:09:28 GMT
I went straight from XP to 8.1 to 10.
one of the keys is old machines shouldn't have OS upgrades. it just muddies the waters. the original OS will do everything the processor will do, most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 24, 2022 0:40:53 GMT
I went straight from XP to 8.1 to 10. one of the keys is old machines shouldn't have OS upgrades. it just muddies the waters. the original OS will do everything the processor will do, most of the time. That's a good point. The only problem is when MS then decides to stop providing security patches for the old OS leaving you exposed. This creates quite the problem for the business computer user. Do you upgrade the OS and hope your processor can handle it, upgrade both your hardware and OS, or keep running the old OS and take your chances. Then there's the problem of your application software. Will your old applications be transferable to a new system? Will they run on just an OS update? In many cases, you may be looking a tens of thousands of dollars of applications software that will need to be replaced. That is if you can even buy new copies of the applications you are using. I can understand Microsoft not wanting to cover the cost of supporting an OS that is outdated, but a simple solution would be to charge a subscription charge to provide support for older operating systems. I'm sure many businesses would be willing to pay for a subscription to keep their old systems safely running. I know I would. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 24, 2022 0:47:09 GMT
I went straight from XP to 8.1 to 10. one of the keys is old machines shouldn't have OS upgrades. it just muddies the waters. the original OS will do everything the processor will do, most of the time. That's a good point. The only problem is when MS then decides to stop providing security patches for the old OS leaving you exposed. This creates quite the problem for the business computer user. Do you upgrade the OS and hope your processor can handle it, upgrade both your hardware and OS, or keep running the old OS and take your chances. Then there's the problem of your application software. Will your old applications be transferable to a new system? Will they run on just an OS update? In many cases, you may be looking a tens of thousands of dollars of applications software that will need to be replaced. That is if you can even buy new copies of the applications you are using. I can understand Microsoft not wanting to cover the cost of supporting an OS that is outdated, but a simple solution would be to charge a subscription charge to provide support for older operating systems. I'm sure many businesses would be willing to pay for a subscription to keep their old systems safely running. I know I would. there's already an undercurrent of rebellion against software manufacturers who want people to rent their software instead of owning it. I'm running microsoft office 2016, so I don't have to rent a newer version. I'm also going to be installing Quickbooks 2020 because THEY want me to rent their software for hundreds of dollars a year. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 24, 2022 1:38:20 GMT
That's a good point. The only problem is when MS then decides to stop providing security patches for the old OS leaving you exposed. This creates quite the problem for the business computer user. Do you upgrade the OS and hope your processor can handle it, upgrade both your hardware and OS, or keep running the old OS and take your chances. Then there's the problem of your application software. Will your old applications be transferable to a new system? Will they run on just an OS update? In many cases, you may be looking a tens of thousands of dollars of applications software that will need to be replaced. That is if you can even buy new copies of the applications you are using. I can understand Microsoft not wanting to cover the cost of supporting an OS that is outdated, but a simple solution would be to charge a subscription charge to provide support for older operating systems. I'm sure many businesses would be willing to pay for a subscription to keep their old systems safely running. I know I would. there's already an undercurrent of rebellion against software manufacturers who want people to rent their software instead of owning it. I'm running microsoft office 2016, so I don't have to rent a newer version. I'm also going to be installing Quickbooks 2020 because THEY want me to rent their software for hundreds of dollars a year. I know most of the major application software suppliers are going that route but I'm dead against it. It's not that I would mind so much paying for a subscription, but I just don't trust them. I want to buy my software and know I'll have it in 3 or 5 or 10 years. How do I know that the company that I am trusting to handle all of my business needs will not go belly-up or be bought by someone else that no longer wants to support their product. I just had that happen with my Insteon smart home automation units. I had almost $1000 in Insteon smart plugs, switches, modules and hubs. They were all controlled through Insteon's cloud based server. For a number of years, everything worked great. Then one day about two months ago, everything stopped working. I couldn't even turn on my living room lamps. Upon checking, I found that Insteon no longer wanted to be in the smart home business so they just shut down their cloud server. Thousands upon thousands of Insteon devices became bricks. So do I want my email, word processing, software development applications, graphic layout and accounting software to suffer the same fate? I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 24, 2022 4:20:02 GMT
there's already an undercurrent of rebellion against software manufacturers who want people to rent their software instead of owning it. I'm running microsoft office 2016, so I don't have to rent a newer version. I'm also going to be installing Quickbooks 2020 because THEY want me to rent their software for hundreds of dollars a year. I know most of the major application software suppliers are going that route but I'm dead against it. It's not that I would mind so much paying for a subscription, but I just don't trust them. I want to buy my software and know I'll have it in 3 or 5 or 10 years. How do I know that the company that I am trusting to handle all of my business needs will not go belly-up or be bought by someone else that no longer wants to support their product. I just had that happen with my Insteon smart home automation units. I had almost $1000 in Insteon smart plugs, switches, modules and hubs. They were all controlled through Insteon's cloud based server. For a number of years, everything worked great. Then one day about two months ago, everything stopped working. I couldn't even turn on my living room lamps. Upon checking, I found that Insteon no longer wanted to be in the smart home business so they just shut down their cloud server. Thousands upon thousands of Insteon devices became bricks. So do I want my email, word processing, software development applications, graphic layout and accounting software to suffer the same fate? I do not. quickbooks wants people to store their data on the cloud, and my response was: "first, I don't always have internet. second, if I have the machine I run quickbooks on, IT HAS THE DATA ON IT, TOO." |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 24, 2022 4:25:16 GMT
I will control who has my data, thank you.
|
|
