flynnibus
Premium Member
So, days? Hah, try overnight most of the time.
I was being generous so someone wouldn't come back with 'but xyzzy takes 2 days!!' - either way, it doesn't take 6+ months to install
So, days? Hah, try overnight most of the time.
Right. I was just stating that to reinforce the point since I have professional experience with it, and you are correct.I was being generous so someone wouldn't come back with 'but xyzzy takes 2 days!!' - either way, it doesn't take 6+ months to install
Companies in that boat tend to do that because they have custom or niche software they are integrated with or depend on and are deferring tackling that upgrade or replacement.
That or they are the type the computers just do single things and never change/grow
I disagree. Win 7 was an excellent release. Vista was bloated, but rather solid (by SP1).XP was, and still is, a great general purpose OS. It took them at least 5 years to work the bugs out,(as best as possible) so now they decide to make it obsolete.
Windows 7 was just as bad as Vista and possible a little better than ME, and Windows 8 is certainly not designed for business purposes. It will take them another 5 years to make it functional and by that time they will have another new product to force upon the consumers.
Fox Theater?Right. I was just stating that to reinforce the point since I have professional experience with it, and you are correct.
James Brown Arena and Bell Auditorium in Augusta.Fox Theater?
I did get passes to that show though, and it was amazing! The stage work was top notch!James Brown Arena and Bell Auditorium in Augusta.
Never worked at the Fox, though I was offered a few times, but it's been years. The last offer was for Rob Zombie, and that was what, over a decade ago?
fully agree with you, windows 8 is a nightmare productivity wise.XP was, and still is, a great general purpose OS. It took them at least 5 years to work the bugs out,(as best as possible) so now they decide to make it obsolete.
Windows 7 was just as bad as Vista and possible a little better than ME, and Windows 8 is certainly not designed for business purposes. It will take them another 5 years to make it functional and by that time they will have another new product to force upon the consumers.
I disagree. Win 7 was an excellent release. Vista was bloated, but rather solid (by SP1).
8, and IE 11, is fraught with issues though for enterprise use to the point where it is barely supportable. I've never complained to MS before, but I did about 8, because their corporate mindset doesn't seem to account their primary user base...businesses. It makes decision makers, like me, look long and hard at how to avoid their products in the future.
XP was excellent from day one (when compared to it's predecessors, a million times better than 4.0 and a significant improvement on 2000)...
Comparing ME to any MS OS after that isn't a valid comparison, since they are from completely different MS OS families (7 is part of the NT family, ME was the dying breath of DOS).
not exactly experienced in the whole touring thing...You mean the stuff a touring company puts up in days or less?
Vista was underrated. It wasn't that bad after SP1. Was it as clean as XP? No. But, it's certainly not as messy as 8 is.fully agree with you, windows 8 is a nightmare productivity wise.
everything seems to locked and for pre-schoolers, its not even funny.
you have to click 4 times as much now as with Windows 7.
And its not like business will use touchscreens for office work..
and before I forgot....you know a OS is bad.. when you have to install a bunch of programs to make it usable.
Let's not forget that most of the problems of XP was not actually XP itself.. but device drivers.. AMD and Nvidia (ATI and Nvidia, specially nvidia) Racked almost 80 to 90% of all BSODS and crashes during the first years.
Vista was terrible, super heavy, slow, bloated.. and even when you castrated it to make it run in the minimum.. still felt bloated.
not exactly experienced in the whole touring thing...
but how many workers do have a touring company vs disney in therms of moving and tech?
because I agree the time difference is huge (the only thing I imagine is.. what if most of the equipment that was installed... is "fixed" to the structure?.. having to tear the entire thing to get the systems out)
well, Vista after a few service packs.. were trimmed and made somehow similar to Windows 7 (except with the display and sound device limitations).Vista was underrated. It wasn't that bad after SP1. Was it as clean as XP? No. But, it's certainly not as messy as 8 is.
Moving my client machines to 8 was the worst decision I ever made, but an intentional one. It's caused me operational headaches that you can't imagine.
The same goes with server 2012...hands down the worst server version MS has ever put out, and it's the last straw for me. My next migration will be to *nix for the handful of servers I still have on MS.
My advice, keep it on 2008. I have several 2012 servers, and I hate them all.well, Vista after a few service packs.. were trimmed and made somehow similar to Windows 7 (except with the display and sound device limitations).
Speaking of Windows Vista problems..
I loathed that bug where listening to music = super slow network performance.
or viceversa... big network performance = cutting and skipping music..
Microsoft's answer? "ITS A FEATURE!"
(ps, I havent touched Server 2012, I'm still using Server 2008 SE or R2 for my NAS/media server)
I disagree. Win 7 was an excellent release. Vista was bloated, but rather solid (by SP1).
8, and IE 11, is fraught with issues though for enterprise use to the point where it is barely supportable. I've never complained to MS before, but I did about 8, because their corporate mindset doesn't seem to account their primary user base...businesses. It makes decision makers, like me, look long and hard at how to avoid their products in the future.
XP was excellent from day one (when compared to it's predecessors, a million times better than 4.0 and a significant improvement on 2000)...
Comparing ME to any MS OS after that isn't a valid comparison, since they are from completely different MS OS families (7 is part of the NT family, ME was the dying breath of DOS).
I was being generous so someone wouldn't come back with 'but xyzzy takes 2 days!!' - either way, it doesn't take 6+ months to install
My only problem with 2008 and 2012 is that they require indexing to handle searches, and some servers will not allow indexing, those clients are screwed. I could be wrong, but is there a way to turn that off.My advice, keep it on 2008. I have several 2012 servers, and I hate them all.
I would agree with you but when was the last time this equipment got some TLC and refurb. For all we know there could be mechanical and physical damages to these floats and sound equipment that they have not had the chance to take care of yet. I am not trying to say that 6+ month is correct of them, but we don't know why.
fully agree with you, windows 8 is a nightmare productivity wise.
everything seems to locked and for pre-schoolers, its not even funny.
you have to click 4 times as much now as with Windows 7.
And its not like business will use touchscreens for office work..
and before I forgot....you know a OS is bad.. when you have to install a bunch of programs to make it usable.
Let's not forget that most of the problems of XP was not actually XP itself.. but device drivers.. AMD and Nvidia (ATI and Nvidia, specially nvidia) Racked almost 80 to 90% of all BSODS and crashes during the first years.
Vista was terrible, super heavy, slow, bloated.. and even when you castrated it to make it run in the minimum.. still felt bloated.
not exactly experienced in the whole touring thing...
but how many workers do have a touring company vs disney in therms of moving and tech?
because I agree the time difference is huge (the only thing I imagine is.. what if most of the equipment that was installed... is "fixed" to the structure?.. having to tear the entire thing to get the systems out)
AK slowest period?
Jan - May.
Shut down the most expensive show in the park!
Seems 100% logical. The savings in labor alone will pay for a huge chunk of the new building.
Smart move overall. Honestly, WDW guests in the offseason should be more thankful that more attractions are not seasonal. Most theme parks offer limited attractions during down times. Including local parks. Shows are much easier to cut and cost saving to cut than rides.
I noticed that you get mad on every other board I read (and snap at multiple people), first off do something to change it. If your not happy write letters don't just rant on a Board all that does is get other people worked up. Instead use that energy to start a campaign to change it, you never know that one letter maybe the letter that breaks the Camels back and brings about a change. And if Disney goes down and they sells the parks like you swear they will then you know what. You can proudly say that you did something to try to save the parks instead watching them deteriorate.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.