| 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 |
 |
Navy carrier to run Windows 2000 | |
|
||
| Time: 21:21 EST/02:21 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
Thanks Dwayne. The Navy’s next-generation aircraft carrier will use Microsoft Windows 2000 to run its communications systems, aircraft and weapons launchers, and other ship electronics. Lockheed Martin officials chose Microsoft in part because of the company’s “experience in computers, networks and systems,” Lockwood said. “We felt that Microsoft had a lot of insight” that could help Lockheed Martin stay current with commercial technology, he said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:50:16 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 11/2/2001 10:50:05 PM |
| I believe its called Windows for Warfare. I don't know about you but me that just sounds bad ass. |
| #2 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 11/3/2001 1:26:45 AM |
|
Say what you want sunglasses. This is a big win for MS and a huge win for Windows. THe subcontracting job is worth 500 million bucks. That is a huge win for MS.
Did you actually read the article? The navy currently doesn't do this. They use a couple of different platforms including solaris. What they said is they were moving everything to Windows. True 2000 or "Son of Windows" won't be the only OS for the Navy ever. But 2000 just became much much more important for them. |
| #3 By 125 (208.181.98.7) at 11/3/2001 1:48:24 AM |
|
Associated Press
March 29, 2013 "The men and women of the USS Bill Gates (CVN-77) and all Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the crew of the Japanese supertanker 'Yoko Ono' whom generously towed the 5-year old aircraft carrier from Okinawa, Japan back to her home port of San Diego, CA. The carrier, according to high-level Department of Defense officials, suffered a massive computer systems breakdown after a sailor attempted to save a word processing document with the same name as a document located on another computer in the ships network. Windows.NOT, the world's most popular operating system, running on 99.998% of all computers on Earth, appears to be at fault. Paul Donknownutin, Vice-President of Social Engineering at Microsoft, informed us that this is actually a feature of the operating system designed to prevent having two files with the same name and thus confusing users. He also made it clear that they have no plans to remove it from the current or any future versions of Windows. The Gates, which is due to arrive at Naval Station San Diego at 18:00 PST this evening, is to be met by family members and friends who have been anxiously awaiting there return these past six weeks. In unrelated news, Rich Lockwood, the former director of advanced naval and command, control, communications, computers and intelligence programs for Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems in Moorestown, N.J. was found last night after apparently taking his own life." This post was edited by astorrs on Saturday, November 03, 2001 at 02:03. |
| #4 By 125 (208.181.98.7) at 11/3/2001 2:05:51 AM |
|
Okay I couldn't resist having a little fun...
Now for the question that has yet to be asked.... I wonder if they'll get stuck with a subscription software model as well, wouldn't that be funny... ;) |
| #5 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 11/3/2001 2:07:25 AM |
| Heh, if only that were the case. I can dream right? |
| #6 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/3/2001 3:11:10 AM |
|
#4, not sure how this detracts from the article or the good news for Microsoft.
The article didn't mention those things because they had nothing to do with the article. See, unlike many of the unix/linux zealots out there, real news doesn't always have to have a pro-"my side" spin on it. Granted, it usually does... but that's a different argument. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/3/2001 10:40:43 AM |
|
#6. No, that never happened.
|
| #8 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/3/2001 1:06:36 PM |
|
"The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va., because a database overflow caused its propulsion system to fail, according to Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet Technical Support Center in Norfolk."
"The Yorktown lost control of its propulsion system because its computers were unable to divide by the number zero, the memo said. The Yorktown's Standard Monitoring Control System administrator entered zero into the data field for the Remote Data Base Manager program." 216.232.97.176, it wasn't the operating system that failed here. It was the database which failed, if I read the article correctly. Sounds like some folks need better data integrity rules. ""If you understand computers, you know that a computer normally is immune to the character of the data it processes," he wrote in the June U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings Magazine. "Your $2.95 calculator, for example, gives you a zero when you try to divide a number by zero, and does not stop executing the next set of instructions. It seems that the computers on the Yorktown were not designed to tolerate such a simple failure."" I don't know of any computer or calculator which won't give an error if you try to divide by zero. It sounds like this guy is making up excuses. The OS has nothing to do with division errors - errors like that should be handled in the program processing the data. As for whether or not an error should be thrown, well that is an issue with the CPU maker or the compiler vendor. In my experience, I have never used a language, CPU, or calculator that doesn't throw an error if you try to divide by zero. The issue, as I see it, has nothing to do with Windows NT. I've written enough code on Solaris and Red Hat Linux to know that I get a core dump if I try to divide by zero and not handle the error. That is not the OS's fault, it is my fault. Let's put blame where blame belongs and not flame the OS. |
| #9 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/3/2001 1:11:39 PM |
|
And now that I've read the second article.
"According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred. " Once again, let's place blame where blame belongs. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/3/2001 1:30:22 PM |
|
#18, #19... No it didn't. Read the article again, because at no point does it talk about the OS blue screening.
Read post #20. BobSmith has offered to give you a clue about how computers work. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/3/2001 8:52:48 PM |
|
#26. Running Win98, eh?
|
| #12 By 1190 (63.28.229.192) at 11/4/2001 8:00:57 AM |
|
Quote from RedAvenger: "This is a big win for MS and a huge win for Windows."
And it's also a big win for our adversaries. Now they can find new ways of exploiting and crippling critical systems throughout the fleet. Where do you want to go today? Not in combat I hope! :P At least they didn't use XP. I can just see the start menu now...My Pictures...My Music...My Casualties. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/4/2001 4:24:25 PM |
|
#32. Nope, the OS was not at fault. Read the articles again.
There are certainly a lot of people who jump to that conclusion, but they are all wrong. |
| #14 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/4/2001 9:47:08 PM |
|
I still stand by what I said in #20 and #21. I'll also say that it wouldn't surprise me at all if Windows NT bluescreened. I think that has happened to me at least as many times as I've cored dumped in Solaris or Linux.
Along the lines of conciliatory language though, it is easy to make a statement that "If the OS didn't crash, the ship control software would still have been functional." but as a programmer, I'm not sure that this is a true statement. If I use Outlook as my email client and I have Word as Outlooks only email editor, then I won't be able to use outlook for email if my Word installation is corrupt. This says nothing about the stability (or lack thereof) of the operating system, it speaks of dependencies among software systems. If you don't know the design, you don't REALLY know what would be functional if one piece fails. Keep in mind I think it is quite possible that NT4 crased, but perhaps, just perhaps, it didn't and someone other than the OS is to blame. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/5/2001 12:22:09 AM |
|
#34. Once again, the article never states that the NT system blue screened or even crashed.
The only thing is says is "software glitches resulted in system failures and crippled ship operations." Any discussion of NT is done in the context of being part of the "system" that was implemented. But we also know that NT itself does not do anything, it's software written on top of the OS which does the work. In the particular case of this article it is quite clear that it was the custom programming which failed. If you read further into the articles you'll note that it talks about how bad data was saved into the configuration database such that every time a console was brought up, it immediately crashed. Again this speaks more to a software logic problem than it does an OS failure. The OS does not care what data is saved in the database at all. Why am I unwilling to admit that NT failed? That's simple, because it would be a really stupid assumption to make given the description of the failure. I'd like to know why you keep arguing a point when it's quite clear you are dead wrong. |
| #16 By 116 (66.68.170.138) at 11/5/2001 1:47:25 AM |
|
Quote from Foo_Fighter: "I am a retard and in real life no one likes me."
|
| #17 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/5/2001 2:02:35 AM |
|
#38. A failure is a failure. The only point of conflict is whether the failure was at the OS layer or the Application layer. I pointed out that based on the description of the failure it was quite clearly at the Application layer. The fact that I'm right and your wrong is immaterial to the situation on board the ships.
You want to believe it was at the OS layer. Why? You have no technical reason to suspect this based on the error description. What's amazing to me is over the past several years just how many otherwise bright people fall for this Navy story solely because of the hatred in their hearts. And people wonder what makes Osama Bin Laden tick... when you are that full of hate... logic and reason goes right out the window. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:50:16 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
