| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Embedded Report Riles Linux Community | |
|
||
| Time: 12:27 EST/17:27 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
It’s embedded Windows versus embedded Linux, round two. Shortly after publishing a fiercely contested report in January 2002 that one Linux developer at the time characterized as “marketing-generated half-truths,” Microsoft Corp. funded a new study comparing its Windows CE and Windows XP Embedded operating systems with Linux. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:42:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 9/2/2003 2:03:36 PM |
|
... but only that those projects were more complex.”
it would also be indicitive of slow, unknowledgeable, programmers; or slackers; or stupidity in general; or a lack of understanding of the marketing process; or of shipping... See, I can play with words too. ;) |
| #2 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 9/2/2003 6:42:41 PM |
|
See you just don't understand!
Working with Linux is HARD! It's not fair to compare it with simpler, easier to deploy alternatives! |
| #3 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 9/2/2003 7:29:58 PM |
| lies, they are all damn lies... linux is the best OS on the planet... thats why Microsoft uses it to protect them from MSBlast and thats why WindowsXP is really built on top of linux. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/2/2003 7:30:17 PM |
| Yikes, sounds like someone failed Statistics 101. If the sample size is sufficiently large (1000 should be sufficient), and the samples are random, then any random variable which might affect one side would statistically affect the other side as well. IOW, it is just as likely that the set of Windows projects would be complex as it is likely that the set of Linux projects would be complex. The reason you use sufficient samples and choose them at random is to ensure you can reach a defensible conclusion against such claims that Mr. Lehrbaum has made. |
| #5 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/2/2003 7:38:39 PM |
|
Yikes, someone failed to read: the survey only included 100 samples. And Lehrbaum's point is that the market applications could be so distinctively unique or reporting differences so divergent (i.e. the statistical variables cannot be eliminated with a "sufficiently" large sample pool) that the comparison is inadequate so increasing the sample pool to 1000 itself does not reveal anything. Lehrbaum had your little statistics lesson in mind, Bob. He just didn't make it overtly.
This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 at 20:38. |
| #6 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 9/2/2003 8:43:25 PM |
|
Bob, I find your argument compelling.
jerky boy, I find you full of excuses. |
| #7 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/2/2003 8:57:49 PM |
|
okay, soda, if you find Bob's argument compelling, then you find this report completely unsatisfactory as it fails to have an adequate sample pool.
Wipdeedoo. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 at 23:43. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/3/2003 12:05:35 AM |
|
Jerk, you're dead right! I scanned the comment above but hadn't read the article nor the report that article was based on.
I don't feel like reading the report, but I have now read the article. I think Lehrbaum is wrong. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that the 100 projects came from OEM's. He wasn't attacking those projects, but rather other projects. If I remember my stats, 100 is sufficient to remove noise. The noise in the case is complexity, scale, etc. It is reasonable that if there were x number of simple Linux apps, there would be close to that number of simple Windows apps. If there were close to y number of complex Linux apps, there would be close to that number of complex Windows apps, etc. I totally agree on the price issue with respect to Windows XP Embedded. It's cost is significantly higher than Windows CE, so if you say Windows Embedded is cheaper, that conclusion must be based on the cost of both runtimes. If it isn't, the conclusion is flawed. Also, IIRC, stats doesn't draw conclusions. It points out the likelihood of occurrance. So, the punch line of an analysis would be something like this..."Based on the data points examined, there is a z% probability that q caused r or was a factor in r's occurrance." It's been a while since I've had stats, so perhaps I misremember that. |
| #9 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/3/2003 1:20:47 AM |
| Thank you, Bob, for continuing to prove that although you may 100% disagree with me, you can still respond to me logically, rationally, and civilly. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/3/2003 2:00:06 AM |
| No prob, bro. |
| #11 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 9/3/2003 10:26:15 AM |
|
Most Linux projects: C/C++
Most Windows Projects: VB, .NET, or Java There's no comparison. .NET and Java are way faster for development times than C++. I'm not bashing C++, but that's the whole point of .NET and Java... rapid development. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:42:49 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
