The days where gaming notebooks were a specialist sector are vanishing extremely fast. The notebooks were circulated in small volumes but each laptops had a massive profit margin. These were the laptops you constantly thought of but were out of your reach. Everybody thought they were the best laptop computers and rightly so. Having said that most of us probably didn’t buy laptop computers of this nature because of the cost. Sales will increase though now that well known brands are entering the sector.

They know there is revenue to be made here. They could direct the sector. With computers becoming like other household electronics this is a great profit source for them. Local retailers are unable compete with them in convincing potential buyers to buy laptop computers. Could this be the death of littler resellers? I know for sure that gaming notebooks will become increasingly affordable for people. Multinational manufacturers can apply their brand names to effortlessly win people over.

The hype being produced concerning the new brand name gaming notebooks is making potential buyers see them to be the best laptop computers ever. This certainly will give some hope to the littler businesses. The custom made feature is a massive plus to the customer. These prospects have the technical literacy and would conclude which notebook computers are best. Often these sorts of purchasers are to a greater extent partial to the specs rather than the styling.

Of course from the consumers view, its a positive thing. Ultimately it will force prices down even more and make the newest technology even more attainable for all of us. I say that a little hesitantly though because the laptops business is a really fast moving place. Brand new laptop computers are constantly being introduced and these new systems always call for high prices. Competition always makes companies to do more and provide greater value so that looks promising.

---

Everybody requires laptops it seems. How did we survive without them? This battery shortage issue is not going to help the circumstances either. Many have predicted laptops to be sought after but its phenomenal that theres been no give. The technology loops are so small too which makes it all the more of an up hill struggle.

There seems to be a lot more variety and availability of gaming laptops these days. Also with the rising competiton and fast paced technology changes, notebook computers don’t hold their value for increased amounts of time. Laptop computers can now realistically be used for gaming by us due to the advanced performance of new portables. What impressed me the most is how sleek and slick a few gaming laptops are getting in contrast to earlier years. Ok so there still is a difference in power no matter how good gaming laptops have become but that should always be there. The metamorphosis of gaming laptops means that they will become slimmer and weightless in the future.

Many small system builders offer custom built laptops to niche sectors. Ram and hard drives are normally high performance engineered parts in custom laptops which hardcore users like. I like the fact that you can on occasions even ask for what components you want. The computers found in the highstreet are commonly configured based normalpopular, mass market customers and well not everybody is standard now are they? You get by this by buying a notebooks built to . I think you also get better service when purchasing a custom notebooks. Big companies are actaully being overlooked because of this.

Next gen notebook computers do seem like an appealing option. Internet devices look to be an increasing sector right now. The Asus Eee just built a new specialist division. Consumers would prefer to have big screen ultra portables if that makes sense. Omit power and price and we would already have this. Guessing from what is occuring it looks like we’ll start seeing ultra mobile gaming notebooks. There’s no guessing what notebooks we’ll see but surely there will be many.

I’ve found what I feel are the best laptop computers.

---

“100% of your design documentation is contained in
the specifications of your information resources.”
- Bryce’s Law

There are many companies today, most overseas, still tackling major systems projects particularly in the areas of banking and manufacturing. These mammoth application development efforts contrast sharply with American companies who have failed in such undertakings and are now content with chipping away at systems, program-by-program, with the hope that disjointed software will somehow/someday interface with each other. Whereas foreign competitors talk in terms of enormous systems with hundreds of programs and millions of lines of code; large integrated systems tend to intimidate the most ardent of American developers. But this is not so much a story about competition as it is about understanding design complexity.

People in both the east and the west recognize the design and development of a total system is no small task. A system can consist of many business processes, procedures, programs, inputs, outputs, files, records, data elements, etc. The problem lies in how to best control these information resources and the design decisions associated with them. Two approaches are typically used: progressively break the problem into smaller, more manageable pieces, or; tackle a minuscule portion of the problem at a time. Whereas the former requires a long term perspective, the latter can show a quick return, which is more appealing to a company with a “fast track” mentality.

Some time ago we conducted a study of customer application development projects. Our research centered on two types of projects: those aimed at building a total system, and; those aimed at building a single program. One obvious conclusion was that the number of information resources used in a major system was considerably more than in a program.

However, the key observation made in the study was that there is a finite number of design decisions associated with each type of information resource. As an example, for an output, decisions have to be made as to its physical media (screen or report), size (number of characters), messages associated with it, etc. For a data element, its logical and physical characteristics must be specified (definition, source, label, size, class, length, etc.). For a program, the language to be used, program logic, required file structures, etc. These design decisions can be simple or complex; regardless, they are all required in order to design a system or a program. When we multiply the number of design decisions by the number of information resources, we get an
idea of the magnitude of a systems design project versus the design of a single program (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

NUMBER OF RESOURCES IN AVERAGE SYSTEMS PROJECT: 2,006
NUMBER OF DESIGN DECISIONS TO BE MADE: 49,850

NUMBER OF RESOURCES IN AVERAGE PROGRAM PROJECT: 98
NUMBER OF DESIGN DECISIONS TO BE MADE: 2,070

NOTE: Decisions are design oriented only; they do not include Project Management related decisions (such as those associated with planning, estimating and scheduling).

From this perspective, the average system design project is nearly 25 times larger than the average software design project in terms of complexity. As a footnote, our findings also revealed the “average” system design project is seven times larger than a “complex” software design project.

This discrepancy in system/software complexity provides a clue as to how companies address the problem. Since a software design project is smaller and seemingly more palatable to implement than a total systems project, some companies will focus on software engineering tools and techniques, and abandon total systems engineering practices. This is one reason why programming tools enjoy popularity today.

Contrast this with the size of Japan’s “Best” project to build the country’s next generation of on-line banking systems. This was a major application development effort resulting in 72 “average” systems; a considerably larger project than what is typically addressed in the United States.

MANAGING DECISIONS

There are two aspects to handling decisions: how they are formulated, and how they are controlled.

Trying to make nearly 50,000 design decisions in one step is not only an impossible task, it is a highly impractical way of operating. Just like the design of any product, a system must be designed in gradual phases in such a way as it becomes possible to review and refine the design. In other words, the 50,000 design decisions will be made throughout the life of a development project, not all at once.

It is the responsibility of a systems engineering methodology to define the sequence of events for designing a system. As such, the methodology represents the channel for formulating decisions. Breaking a complex system design down into smaller, more manageable pieces, also provides for:

• Parallel development and delivery of portions of the system
  (concurrent development within a single project).

• An environment conducive for building quality into a product (as opposed to inspecting for quality afterwards).

• The formulation of Project Management related decisions (such as estimating and scheduling the delivery of systems, in part or in full).

This philosophy of design is no different than any other product
design/development effort, such as shipbuilding, automobile manufacturing, bridge building, etc. All require a specific methodology that breaks the product down to its sub-assemblies and parts; thereby organizing the specification of parts and the design decisions associated with them.

Managing the decision making process for even the smallest of application development projects can be a huge undertaking. We estimate there are approximately 500 design decisions associated in a small software design project (as compared to more than 125,000 decisions in the typical complex system design project). To record and control these decisions requires something more sophisticated than just paper and pencil; it requires an automated “Information Resource Manager” (IRM), a software tool capable of inventorying and documenting an enterprise’s information resources.

Whether you call it an “IRM”, a “Repository”, a “Data Dictionary” or whatever, the philosophical heart of the product is based on the age-old concept of “Bill of Materials” whereby resources (also referred to as “components” or “parts”) are cataloged and cross-referenced to each other. Consider a parts manifest as included in a major appliance maintenance bookley (or lawn/garden tool), I am sure this type of diagram is familiar to any homeowner who has reviewed product maintenance/warranty booklets.

Every part in the product is identified by number and name (see section to the right in the figure). To the left side in the figure is a schematic showing how each part relates to the other parts and, as such, represents the assembly of the product for maintenance purposes.

The concept of “Bill of Materials” provides the means to inventory resources thus allowing us to share and re-use them. For example, many of the parts shown in Figure 2 are re-used in other lawnmower models offered by the manufacturer. How can we share and re-use resources without such a concept? The answer is simple: we cannot. And this explains why there is considerable redundancy in our information resources and work effort. It also suggests most of our design decisions are maintained “by the seat of our pants.” Most college courses involving computing are unfamiliar with the Bill of Materials concept. Their focus is on programming and file design, and little else.

The concept of “Bill of Materials” has three objectives:

1. To uniquely identify each resource by number and name (as well as by aliases). Names are nice, but numbers offer a more precise way to uniquely identify a resource. Identification is critical. After all, we cannot share and re-use something if we do not know it exists.

2. To record the part’s specifications. Thus providing a way to determine if the part can be re-used in another product (thereby promoting the sharing of parts and eliminating redundancy).

3. To record where the part is used in a product(s) (aka “Where-used”). This specifies the relationship of parts to each other and, thereby, their assembly. This is also extremely useful for “impact analysis” whereby we can analyze where the part is used in all of our products, not just one, which is vital for making intelligent decisions about modifying a part. For example, if we change the specifications of a part in one product, this will severely impact other products it is also used in.

By controlling parts in this manner, a product’s design is fully
documented.

The “Bill of Material” concept can easily accommodate information resources and offer the same benefits of sharing and re-using components. By doing so, we can easily manage the 50,000 design decisions accompanying a system design project. Our system/software products may be less tangible than an automobile, aircraft or lawnmower, but we can still apply the same concept to their control.

Therefore, an IRM Repository should have the ability to identify, specify, and cross-reference all of the resources mentioned in Figure 1. This can certainly be done manually with paper but this may lead to bureaucratic and access problems for developers. Instead, automation is recommended. There are several such commercial products on the market, but it is also fairly easy to create such software using today’s Data Base Management Systems (DBMS) which are now fairly easy to define and relate resources (they also provide excellent documentation services).

The IRM should be viewed as the hub of all development efforts and provide the means to interface (import/export) with a myriad of other development tools; e.g., CASE, prototyping aids, program generators, etc. Such tools will use the intelligence of the information resources as contained in the IRM to function accordingly. As an example, a program generator should be able to interpret the program and file specifications in order to produce the necessary code. Such development tools should also have the ability to turn around and import resource specifications back into the IRM. This is particularly useful for documenting existing systems/software (aka “Reverse Population”).

For information on how to create an IRM Repository, please see =>http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/pride/spir.htm

The concept of “Bill of Materials” is an important part of an overall strategy to implement an “Information Factory” environment to design and develop information resources. But this will be the subject of a separate paper.

CONCLUSION

This philosophy to managing design complexity is no different than what is found in the engineering and manufacturing of any product. Engineers break their design projects into smaller stages so that reviews can be performed and revisions implemented. A “bill of materials” processor is used to track
the parts or a product and how they interrelate; which is no different in intent than the IRM tool.

For people imbued in programming, it is difficult to think in terms of “parts” as described herein, but it is a practical solution and can be applied to any development effort, large or small. Standardization and integration of information resources is built by design, not by accident.

Without a formalized methodology for design or an IRM tool to record design decisions, a major system design is incomprehensible; there are just too many variables for the human mind to remember or control using manual techniques. It is not that analysts do not want to take on a major systems design project, they simply cannot. They lack the organization and proper tools to perform the job effectively. Because of this, they default to the things they know best, programming, and tackle systems in piecemeal.

The difference between east and west here is not one of working harder, but smarter. The Japanese and Europeans are simply better organized and equipped to perform system design than their American counterparts. This can be attributed, in large part, to management’s sensitivity to the role systems play in a company. Because of this, they are not afraid to tackle large endeavors, while American companies view such undertakings as seemingly too massive to undertake. As such, they sidestep large projects in favor of smaller projects that may address only a portion of the overall problem. This is resulting in the unsettling situation where our competitors are rapidly becoming the world’s systems engineers, while Americans become the world’s software engineers.

For more information on our philosophies of Information Resource Management (IRM), please see the “Introduction” section of “PRIDE” at =>http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/pride/intro.htm#irm

---

So you want to switch to satellite radio, but you aren’t sure
with which service to go with? Two of the biggest names in
satellite radio today, XM and Sirius, both offer a large variety
of music stations that you would never hear on regular
commercial radio. And most of the music channels, for both
services, are commercial free. Of course, nothing is truely
free. Both Sirius and XM charge you a service fee to listen to
their music channels - someone has to pay for those satellites!

So what is the difference between Sirius and XM?

First of all, Sirius and XM both offer the same commercial-free
music service broadcasted via satellites. Sirius offers 120
channels, or feeds, of music, sports, and entertainment
programming. For this service, Sirius charges a flat monthly
subscription fee of $12.95 for residents of the continental US.
XM currently charges, on the other hand, has 122 channels
broadcasting similar content (68 of which are music channels),
and charge a slightly smaller monthly fee: $9.95. XM currently
has the largest share in the satellite marked with 2 million
customers.

So why does Sirius charge more? Sirius claims to have superior
sound quality thanks to their statistical multiplexing
technology, which provides additional bandwidth across all
SIRIUS streams. This is supposed to increase overall sound
quality and resolution. There has been little feedback however,
to verify whether or not this system really enhances sound
quality to a noticeable degree. In addition, Sirius is offering
free audio feeds through the internet to its paying customers,
something XM charges a couple dollars a month extra for. So if
you plan on listening to the radio via the net often, you can
expect to pay about the same no matter which company you go
with. Sirius also claims to have 24 hour customer service -
something XM radio has yet to fully achieve. Oh, and one more
thing. Sirius has 2 NPR channels, for you NPR fans out there:
NPR Now and NPR Talk. Pretty cool.

So does that mean Sirius is better? Well, that depends. XM has
some neat stuff too, like a bunch of cool XM Satellite Radio
receivers and displays. They also have the biggest broadcasting
network right now, and are probably the most likely to expand
services significantly in the near future. Overall, they are
just about equal, and you are better off going with either of
these services than any other.

This Sirius vs XM satellite radio review was brought to you by
SciNet Science and Technology Search Engine. SciNet is not
affiliated with or specifically endorses Sirius or XM satellite
radio. Please consult the XM and Sirius product information and
configurations before you purchase either device or service. It
is also a good idea to seek other product review and information
as necessary.

---

For sweet spot customers, consider the services you can provide to these IT consulting clients. In this article, you’ll learn some of the more popular ones.

IT Consulting: What Website Design Programs Should You Know?

You should be familiar with at least basic web authoring tools to set up a simple web site for your IT consulting clients and you should certainly have one of your own. At a minimum, you should be familiar with, Microsoft Front page. If you are going to do more high end websites, Macromedia or Dreamweaver could be a good programs for you to learn at some point.

IT Consulting: What about Terminal Services?

Real is still hot among small businesses. You should be familiar with what is built into the window server. The fax machine may be going away, but the concept of faxing over the network is just as important as ever.

You should be comfortable with performance monitoring so you can so some tweaking and tune-ups to find out what is going on with different thresholds. VPN and RADs, virtual private networking and remote access is still a real big issue especially with teleworkers and branch offices.

IT Consulting: What about Virus Protection?

You should be familiar with some of the more advanced virus protection applications - especially where they cross over multiple applications. When they are specifically working with something group-wide like Exchange Server or IAS, you should be familiar with how to automate that within the management server. You should also be familiar with some of the more sophisticated firewall and intrusion detection software packages

Copyright MMI-MMVI, Computer Consulting 101 Blog. All Worldwide Rights Reserved. {Attention Publishers: Live hyperlink in author resource box required for copyright compliance}

Joshua Feinberg, co-founder of Computer Consulting 101, helps computer consulting businesses get more steady, high-paying clients. Learn how you can too. Sign-up now for your free access to these field-tested, proven business strategies on the Computer Consulting 101 Blog.

---

An MCSE certification is one of the most valued qualifications in the IT industry. The credentials of earning the MCSE traditionally would be same as earning it through an online system, and there are several advantages of following the online path.

Through an online course, all study takes place at home or in the office, wherever is convenient. Most companies who provide online certification training have been certified by Microsoft, and they have a network of teachers and administrative personnel to help a candidate sail smoothly through the study period and the exam. There is an added advantage of cutting down on traveling time and costs, which one would generally waste in traditional classroom training. Also, the fees of such programs are considerably lower than their study center counterparts.

The pace of study for these programs is decided by the candidate. One can spend from a few minutes to a few hours a day, depending upon one’s personal schedule. Also, one can study anytime, twenty-four hours a day. The course materials, reference and sample test papers for individual subjects are available on the servers. Moreover, the entire software required for the learning process is in constant supply, and this software provides real exam-like simulations which engage the candidates in the learning process.

The duration of these courses can vary from 6 months to an entire year depending upon the company offering the course. Upon successful completion and passing of a grade of 70% or higher, these companies are authorized to grant the candidate with an MCSE certificate.

---

When you’re studying to pass the BCMSN exam on the way to earning your CCNP certification, you’re going to add to your CCNA knowledgebase every step of the way. Nowhere is that more than configuring a trunk between two switches.

You know that IEEE 802.1Q (”dot1q”) and ISL are your two choices of trunking protocols, and you know the main differences between the two. What you might not have known is that there’s a third trunking protocol that’s running between your Cisco switches, and while it’s a transparent process to many, you had better know about it for your BCMSN and other CCNP exams!

The Cisco-proprietary Dynamic Trunking Protocol (DTP) actively attempts to negotiate a trunk link with the remote switch. This sounds great, but there is a cost in overhead - DTP frames are transmitted every 30 seconds. If you decide to configure a port as a non-negotiable trunk port, there’s no need for the port to send DTP frames.

DTP can be turned off at the interface level with the switchport nonegotiate command, but as you see below, you cannot turn DTP off until the port is no longer in dynamic desirable trunking mode. (Dynamic desirable is the default mode for most Cisco switch ports.)

SW2(config)#int fast 0/8

SW2(config-if)#switchport nonegotiate

Command rejected: Conflict between ‘nonegotiate’ and ‘dynamic’ status.

SW2(config-if)#switchport mode ?

access Set trunking mode to ACCESS unconditionally

dynamic Set trunking mode to dynamically negotiate access or trunk mode

trunk Set trunking mode to TRUNK unconditionally

SW2(config-if)#switchport mode trunk

SW2(config-if)#switchport nonegotiate

When you’re working with Cisco switches in a home lab or rack rental environment, run IOS Help regularly to see what options are available for the commands you’re practicing with. Cisco switch ports have quite a few options, and the best way to find them is with one simple symbol - the question mark!

Chris Bryant, CCIE #12933, is the owner of The Bryant Advantage, home of free CCNP and CCNA tutorials, The Ultimate CCNA Study Package, and Ultimate CCNP Study Packages.
For a FREE copy of his latest e-books, “How To Pass The CCNA” and “How To Pass The CCNP”, just visit the website! You can also get FREE CCNA and CCNP exam questions every day! Pass the CCNP exam with The Bryant Advantage!

---