"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
6...
"Gordon Wedman" wrote in
news:OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89:


"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
6...
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote Along the same
"time marches on" theme, it has been announced that the
USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in
this decade.

That one will be interestingG.


Yeah, but they are running Linux on $100K computers. Are you ready
to trust your life to Bill Gates and Gateway? :-)

Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are
running
laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for
use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a
3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95.

See: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213

And yes, I would trust Windows...

-- Geoff

They might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying
the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some
time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I
guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code
was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was
verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most
expensive code ever written.

I wasn't trying to imply that the main computers which control the
shuttle (which are 4x redundant) ran Windows! I know full well that
those systems probably cost millions. But one has to consider that the
laptops which the shuttle astronauts use are Windows based.

My Northstar 961 chartplotter is based upon Windows NT. It's extremely
stable.

I built my first computer (SWTPC 6800) in 1974 from chips. I've spent
20+ years in the software industry of which 5 were spent in DEC's fault
tolerant group where I implemented systems with 99.999% uptime. That
group later went on to form Marathon Technolgies
http://www.marathontechnologies.com/ which based their solutions on
Windows platforms and provides 99.999% uptime. You'll find that the
vast majority of crashes are caused by I/O system synchronization
problems. The next time that you say "OK" to the fact that the drivers
haven't been certified by MicroSoft, maybe you should realize that this
may be a major contributor to the stability of your system.

So yes, people can throw stones at Microsoft, but often they really
don't understand many of the underlying issues. Please, let's not make
this a religious war and go back to the topic at hand...FCC and code
requirements.

-- Geoff

OK, just meant to add to the other posters comment that some applications do
employ above average computers and software. It seems you are more aware of
that than I am g.
Personally I have no quarrel with Windows. There are so many different
makes of computers out there, and so many different types of programs to put
on them, that only a complete dreamer would expect things to work correctly
100% of the time. If it wasn't for Windows there would be a lot fewer
personal computer users and possibly an Internet much less developed.