Top results related to what are the disadvantages of microsoft windows 8
Answered Feb 08, 2013 · 14 votes
You can create two-way anonymous pipes using CreatePipe() Win32 API call, so piping input/output is not the only way. You simply get a new file handle you can give to the other process.
Anonymous pipes are based on shared memory, but do not support asynchronous operations (through ReadFileEx, ReadFileWrite). Performance issues (disadvantages) are thus 1) synchronous operation, 2) memory copying, 3) interprocess synchronization. Generally, "raw" shared memory (memory mapped file without an actual backing file) and named pipes will be faster, and sockets and Window messages will be slower (than anonymous pipes).
You cannot use I/O Completion Ports (IOCP) with anonymous pipes, instead you'll have to "poll" the pipe, incurring extra context switches. In addition to serializing the data, the serialized data has to be copied around in memory, as you cannot write directly to the shared memory. One process also has to wait for another, implying that the other process has to signal an interprocess synchronization primitive. Performance depends heavily on the size of the messages (ratio of read/write calls to amount of data sent), because for each read/write the process has to make context switches and possibly spin/sleep.
All methods except "raw" shared memory require memory copying and some sort of interprocess signaling (synchronization), so the main disadvantage of anonymous pipes is synchronous operation. You'll hit the ceiling when transmitting large number of messages, when the CPU spends most of its time doing context switches.
Performance-wise, named pipes are better because you can have worker thread(s) processing async notifications using IOCP, and can even receive multiple messages with one call, thus reducing the API overhead. If making your own components, the extra trouble from giving a name to the pipe is well worth the trouble (and you can even connect across networks). Later Windows versions implement special routing for local sockets, which also do support IOCP.
The fastest method would be to use shared memory directly, but then you will have to take care of interprocess synchronization yourself. It's possible to implement lock-free pipes yourself, but in case you're not constantly transmitting data, you'll still have to use synchronization primitives to notify/wake the listening process up.
Also note that using files does not imply that you would be limited by disk speed, as you can use memory mapped files and even with normal files, the cache manager handles the reading/writing. The other methods (RPC, clipboard, etc) are based on these "standard" methods, which means they'll just add some extra layer of protocol and are meant to be easier/more helpful, or more suitable for some programming environment (but not to be faster).
Answered Jun 14, 2010 · 4 votes
Targeting the JVM is a pretty tried and tested approach. The fact that Clojure, Scala, JRuby and many other languages have done so successfully should give you some reassurance.
My view overall is that the JVM is probably the best target at the moment for new/experimental languages, particularly if you hope to achieve cross platform capability while taking advantage of a truly fantastic JIT compiler and a wealth of very powerful libraries.
Having said that, the main disadvantages you may encounter targeting the JVM are in my opinion as follows:
- Lack of tail recursion support at the bytecode level. There are ways around this (e.g. see Clojure's "recur" special form) but it is annoying for some language implementations, particularly functional languages. Will probably eventually be fixed in future versions of Java.
- Slightly obvious, but you need a JVM installed on your client. Usually not a problem nowadays, but there are still cases where this can be tricky.
- Primitives (int, long, float etc.) in Java behave differently from the rest of the object system. Again you can work around this but it is some extra hassle for language implementers.
Some potentially useful/interesting links:
- ASM bytecode analysis and manipulation framework. This is a great tool, I believe it is what what Clojure uses under the hood.
- Clojure source code
Answered Sep 03, 2013 · 27 votes
I would rather ask when mapreduce is not a suitable choice? I don't think you would see any disadvantage if you are using it as intended. Having said that, there are certain cases where mapreduce is not a suitable choice :
- Real-time processing.
- It's not always very easy to implement each and everything as a MR program.
- When your intermediate processes need to talk to each other(jobs run in isolation).
- When your processing requires lot of data to be shuffled over the network.
- When you need to handle streaming data. MR is best suited to batch process huge amounts of data which you already have with you.
- When you can get the desired result with a standalone system. It's obviously less painful to configure and manage a standalone system as compared to a distributed system.
- When you have OLTP needs. MR is not suitable for a large number of short on-line transactions.
There might be several other cases. But the important thing here is how well are you using it. For example, you can't expect a MR job to give you the result in a couple of ms. You can't count it as its disadvantage either. It's just that you are using it at the wrong place. And it holds true for any technology, IMHO. Long story short, think well before you act.
If you still want, you can take the above points as the disadvantages of mapreduce :)
Answered Sep 26, 2012 · 6 votes
The K map does not necessarily fail for higher dimensions. The problem is that it is so difficult to visualize for more than five variables. A 4 variable K-map is 2 dimensional and easy to visualize. A 5 variable is three dimensional, but is still manageable from a visualization standpoint, because the 2 states of the 5th variable only require visually moving from one plane to the next, without moving in the x or y directions of either plane. Just getting equations correct with more than 5 variables is difficult enough using the K map, much less considering an optimum set of terms ("core" prime implicants and "choice" prime implicants).
Answered Sep 23, 2013 · 673 votes
Why are they using <i> tag to display icons ?
Because it is:
- i stands for icon (although not in HTML)
Is it not a bad practice ?
Awful practice. It is a triumph of performance over semantics.
Answered Feb 18, 2021 · 307 votes
I'm jumping in here a little late, but came across this page when pondering it myself. Of course I don't know how Facebook or Twitter justified it, but here is my own thought process for what it's worth.
In the end, I concluded that this practice is not that unsemantic (is that a word?). In fact, besides shortness and the nice association of "i is for icon," I think it's actually the most semantic choice for an icon when a straightforward <img> tag is not practical.
1. The usage is consistent with the spec.
While it may not be what the W3 mainly had in mind, it seems to me the official spec for <i> could accommodate an icon pretty easily. After all, the reply-arrow symbol is saying "reply" in another way. It expresses a technical term that may be unfamiliar to the reader and would be typically italicized. ("Here at Twitter, this is what we call a reply arrow.") And it is a term from another language: a symbolic language.
If, instead of the arrow symbol, Twitter used <i>shout out</i> or <i>[Japanese character for reply]</i> (on an English page), that would be consistent with the spec. Then why not <i>[reply arrow]</i>? (I'm talking strictly HTML semantics here, not accessibility, which I'll get to.)
As far as I can see, the only part of the spec explicitly violated by icon usage is the "span of text" phrase (when the tag doesn't contain text also). It is clear that the <i> tag is mainly meant for text, but that's a pretty small detail compared with the overall intent of the tag. The important question for this tag is not what format of content it contains, but what the meaning of that content is.
This is especially true when you consider that the line between "text" and "icon" can be almost nonexistent on websites. Text may look like more like an icon (as in the Japanese example) or an icon may look like text (as in a jpg button that says "Submit" or a cat photo with an overlaid caption) or text may be replaced or enhanced with an image via CSS. Text, image - who cares? It's all content. As long as everyone - humans with impairments, browsers with impairments, search engine spiders, and other machines of various kinds can understand that meaning, we've done our job.
So the fact that the writers of the spec didn't think (or choose) to clarify this shouldn't tie our hands from doing what makes sense and is consistent with the spirit of the tag. The <a> tag was originally intended to take the user somewhere else, but now it might pop up a lightbox. Big whoop, right? If someone had figured out how to pop up a lightbox on click before the spec caught up, they still should have used the <a> tag, not a <span>, even if it wasn't entirely consistent with the current definition - because it came the closest and was still consistent with the spirit of the tag ("something will happen when you click here"). Same deal with <i> - whatever type of thing you put inside it, or however creatively you use it, it expresses the general idea of an alternate or set-apart term.
2. The <i>
tag adds semantic meaning to an icon element.
The alternative option to carry an icon class by itself is <span>, which of course has no semantic meaning whatsoever. When a machine asks the <span> what it contains, it says, "I don't know. Could be anything." But the <i> tag says, "I contain a different way of saying something than the usual way, or maybe an unfamiliar term." That's not the same as "I contain an icon," but it's a lot closer to it than <span> got!
3. Eventually, common usage makes right.
In addition to the above, it's worth considering that machine readers (whether search engine, screen reader, or whatever) may at any time begin to take into account that Facebook, Twitter, and other websites use the <i> tag for icons. They don't care about the spec as much as they care about extracting meaning from code by whatever means necessary. So they might use this knowledge of common usage to simply record that "there may be an icon here" or do something more advanced like triggering a look into the CSS for a hint to meaning, or who knows what. So if you choose to use the <i> for icons on your website, you may be providing more meaning than the spec does.
Moreover, if this usage becomes widespread, it will likely be included in the spec in the future. Then you'll be going through your code, replacing <span>s with <i>'s! So it may make sense to get on board with what seems to be the direction of the spec, especially when it doesn't clearly conflict with the current spec. Common usage tends to dictate language rules more than the other way around. If you're old enough, do you remember that "Web site" was the official spelling when the word was new? Dictionaries insisted there must be a space and Web must be capitalized. There were semantic reasons for that. But common usage said, "Whatever, that's stupid. I'm using 'website' because it's more concise and looks better." And before long, dictionaries officially acknowledged that spelling as correct.
4. So I'm going ahead and using it.
So, <i> provides more meaning to machines because of the spec, it provides more meaning to humans because we easily associate "i" with "icon", and it's only one letter long. Win! And if you make sure to include equivalent text either inside the <i> tag or right next to it (as Twitter does), then screen readers understand where to click to reply, the link is usable if CSS doesn't load, and human readers with good eyesight and a decent browser see a pretty icon. With all this in mind, I don't see the downside.
Answered Aug 04, 2015 · 78 votes
Quentin's answer clearly states that i tag should not be used to define icons.
But, Holly suggested that span has no meaning in itself and voted in favor of i instead of span tag.
Few suggested to use img as it's semantic and contains alt tag. But, we should not also use img because even empty src sends a request to server. Read here
I think, the correct way would be,
<span class="icon-fb" role="img" aria-label="facebook"></span>
This solves the issue of no alt tag in span and makes it accessible to vision-impaired users. It's semantic and not misusing ( hacking ) any tag.
www.online-sciences.com › computer › the-advantagesAdvantages and disadvantages of Windows 8 | Science onlinewww.online-sciences.com › computer › the-advantages
Jun 6, 2015 · Disadvantages of Windows 8. There is no antivirus for Windows 8, only windows firewall and internet security (but available for win 8 pro), and Apps works only in the full monitor by occupying the full face of the monitor, No side apps can be run while we are using the apps.
- www.careerprofiles.com › career-advice › the-pros
Feb 11, 2013 · Cons of switching to Windows 8. Developers may find that there are a number of characteristics of Windows 8 that may cause minor headaches. The lack of a traditional start menu for one, could cause problems. It takes time to acclimate – requiring that workers may need training.
- www.geeksforgeeks.org › advantages-and
Dec 28, 2020 · Advantages and disadvantages of Windows operating system. Backing for all equipment –. As windows OS is utilized by 95% of clients so the majority of the equipment merchants make drivers for windows. Convenience –. All forms of Microsoft Windows have something regular in it which makes it clients ...
- www.techpluto.com › windows-8-advantage-and
Jul 4, 2013 · Disadvantages of Windows 8 The main disadvantage of Windows 8 is overlapping of Metro and Aero User Interface. Switching between Metro applications... There is no way to turn the home screen tiles into icons. When a number of apps are installed, then the Start screen... It is very difficult to swap ...
- www.itpro.com › operating-systems › 25123
May 17, 2023 · last updated 17 May 2023 We rate Windows 10 vs Windows 8.1 in a number of key categories for professional use Jump to: Boot times Interface Stability Enterprise features Security Mobility features Despite its age, Windows 10 remains Microsoft's most popular operating system, and by extension the most-installed operating system on the market today.
www.online-sciences.com › computer › microsoftMicrosoft Windows advantages, disadvantages, review & featureswww.online-sciences.com › computer › microsoft
Jul 17, 2015 · The advantages and disadvantages of Windows 8 What are the advantages and disadvantages of Windows XP? Windows 10 advantages and disadvantages
www.digitaltrends.com › computing › windows-8-vsWhat's the Difference Between Windows 8 and 10? - Digital Trendswww.digitaltrends.com › computing › windows-8-vs
Mar 28, 2021 · Classic versus universal apps In Windows 8 and 8.1, apps from the Windows Store took up the whole screen, making multitasking more difficult. While Microsoft tried to force the...
Searches related to what are the disadvantages of microsoft windows 8