Looking for:
Incompatibility between Project and Office – Microsoft Community
Upgrade to Project with SP3, or ask the person who sent the Project or later file to save the file first in the Project file format.
Computer – Wikipedia.Microsoft Project FAQs | Questions About Project
It turned out that although I have a retail copy of Project bought through a work plan it is a click to run install. Hence, it cannot install with Office I gave him control of my machine and he determined that the only “fix” to the problem was do download Microsoft Project Standard to replace the version.
Microsoft Project Free Download
This will be the subject of Sects. This subsection will focus on developing the list of research questions used to generate the list of keywords for extracting papers and specify the search methodology. The first stage of this literature review began by defining research questions using the Goal-Question-Metric approach described by Van Solingen et al. This model specifies the purpose, object, issue, and viewpoint that comprise a goal, which is then distilled into research questions and used to create metrics for answering those questions.
The goal of this LR is:. The purpose of asking question 1 is to outline previous research investigating collaboration challenges. The expected outcome will be a comprehensive view of challenges affecting collaborations and identification of gaps or areas warranting future exploration. Research Question 1a will be the topic of Sect. Research Question 2, however, focuses on the development of technology for supporting collaboration.
The answers to this question will yield an overview of design implications for the creation of groupware, which will be discussed in Sect. The research questions listed above were used to identify keywords to use as search terms. This search can be described by the following boolean search query:. Our search methodology used multiple searches as terms were either exhausted or identified by collected papers.
The generated search terms were used to conduct searches using Google Scholar since this search engine conducts a meta-search that returns results from several paper repositories such as Science Direct, ResearchGate, Academia.
During the review, it became apparent that after the first 8—9 pages of results, we reached concept saturation. As a result, we limited our search to the first 10 pages for a total of potential sources. Specifically, collected papers were used to generate additional keywords, identify additional papers through the bibliography, identify newer papers that cited them, and identify authors who had written important papers published in relevant conferences.
These authors were searched for using the identified search engines, and all their papers were evaluated for inclusion. In addition, other researchers proposed sources that were used to boost paper extraction.
These additional methods were used because prior work by Greehalgh and Peacock [ 91 ] found that less efficient methods like snowballing are likely to identify important sources that would otherwise be missed, since predefined protocol driven search strategies cannot solely be relied on. The first ten pages of results from Google Scholar were reviewed since occasionally keywords resulted in a high amount of potential papers. All papers were reviewed from searches resulting in fewer than ten pages of results.
As part of our search methodology, we utilized several inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter the collected papers from the potential papers found using the systematic search and snowballing. These inclusion and exclusion factors are listed in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the number of identified papers that met the inclusion criteria across 5-year periods. To facilitate analysis, the papers identified as part of the LR, shown in Fig.
Virtual teams are affected by physical factors such as geographic distance, in addition to temporal and perceive distance, which are time-based and cognitive respectively. These factors are tightly coupled with social and emotional factors, including trust, motivation, and conflicts. Based on the papers in this literature review, we separate these factors into the categories of distance factors, which include geographical physical , temporal, and perceived distance and contributing factors that are driven by distance including the nature of the work, the presence or need for explicit management, and group composition.
Each category correlates with a set of challenges that greatly affect virtual teams. Distance categories and their associated challenges are discussed in Sect. Contributing factors are discussed later in Sect.
Distance can be categorized as being primarily geographical, temporal, or perceived. Distance categories and their associated challenges are discussed in the following sections to answer Research Question 1a: what factors specific to distance cause challenges that impact distance collaboration? Thus, two physically distant locations could be considered geographically close if they have regular direct flights.
Even a distance as small as 30 meters has been shown to have a profound influence on communication between collaborators [ 4 ]. Furthermore, geographical distance is well known to pose challenges for virtual teams [ ]. Olson and Olson explored these challenges at length in [ ] and [ ]. Their first work compared remote and co-located work through an analysis of more than ten years of laboratory and field research examining synchronous collaborations [ ].
The paper presented a follow-up study that synthesized other prior work [ 78 , ] to expand their contribution [ ]. Findings from both studies identified the following ten challenges that hinder distance work:. Challenges 1—5 will be discussed in this section while Challenges 6—10 will be topics of interest later in Sect. However, these effects are harder to find and cultivate in remote work, which poses an additional challenge to collaboration.
The cause of these problems is likely because co-located workers have more opportunities for casual encounters and unplanned conversations [ ], which boosts awareness. Similarly, distance prevents the informal visual observations necessary for maintaining awareness [ 8 ]. This is important since workers use the presence of specific teammates in a shared space to guide their work and prefer to be aware of who is sharing their work space [ 71 ].
Isolation can have an effect as well—when members of a virtual team become more isolated, their contributions and participation with the team decrease [ 32 ]. The importance of awareness in collaboration is discussed at length by Dourish and Bellotti [ 62 ], who investigate awareness through a case study examining ShrEdit [ ], a text editor that supports multiple users synchronously.
This context further allows individuals to avoid duplication of work. Collaborative work is significantly delayed without such awareness [ ].
Moreover, awareness is a mandatory requirement for coordinating group activities, independent of the domain [ 62 ]. Many computer-based technologies have been developed to assist distance workers in maintaining awareness of their collaborators. Some early systems e. Since then, a number of modern systems e. For example, Glikson et al. They found that the visualization tool increased team effort and improved performance in teams that had a low proportion of highly conscientious members [ 89 ].
This effect did not hold true for teams with a high proportion of highly conscientious members. See the work of [ ] for a more comprehensive review of awareness-supporting technology. The concept of awareness as a direction for research has been criticized. This is more than a call to change terminology, but rather a fundamental shift in the way that research in this area is approached. Despite this recommendation, the awareness approach is still a commonly explored area [ 7 , ], indicating disagreement within the community that has yet to be resolved, presenting a research opportunity.
Throughout the relevant studies canvassed in this paper, trust has been defined in a multitude of ways. Lastly, Meyerson et al.
The commonalities among these definitions include a perception that trust involves the belief that a collaborator will act in a beneficent manner as opposed to self-interest, acts in good-faith to honor commitments. According to prior work [ 23 , 42 ], trust is the key variable that is crucial for all aspects of collaboration This includes team effectiveness, since trust determines whether team members ask each other for help, share feedback, and discuss issues and conflicts [ 23 ].
In fact, building mutual trust and personal knowledge about collaborators is more important to a good collaboration than resolving technical issues [ ]. Furthermore, trust is particularly important in virtual teams since interactions on computer-mediated communication CMC technologies tend to be superficial i.
Trust is linked to positive aspects of collaboration. For example, commitment to the team and project is greatly influenced by trust [ 28 ]. Trust can also improve collaboration infrastructure [ 10 ] and is also crucial for the occurrence of normative actions [ 48 ]. Maurping and Agarwal [ ] found that building trust early on in a virtual collaboration plays a critical role in developing adequate group functioning and the ability to manage social activities.
In addition, virtual teams that develop trust early may notice information confirming the competence of their team members and may not notice contradicting evidence [ ]. As a result of their early development of trust, members of these teams also gain the confidence to engage in normative actions that sustain both trust and later performance [ 48 ]. While some research has found that the relationship between early trust and performance is stronger in highly virtual teams than in less virtual teams [ ], whether the performance actually improves is up for debate.
Some prior work [ ] reports positive effects of trust on performance while others report negligible or no effects [ ]. Trust is more difficult to establish and maintain in geographically dispersed collaborations [ , , ] for a variety of reasons including the lack of strong relationships common to co-located teams [ 36 , 37 , 38 , ] difficulties having in-depth personal interactions due to the absence of nonverbal cues and difficulties inferring the intentions of others [ 67 ].
Trust is also dependent on frequency of interactions, which may be less in virtual teams [ ]. Swift trust in virtual teams is particularly fragile due to the unexpected disruptions and differences across time, distance, organization, and culture in virtual teams [ ]. Teams that interact virtually are considerably less likely to develop trust [ ].
Furthermore, trust develops in a sequential approach in co-located tams but follows an ad-hoc, unpredictable approach in virtual teams [ ]. This difficulty in establishing trust has profound effects on collaboration, e. Additionally, several studies e. These issues have detrimental effects on collaborations that can delay or even halt the progress of a project. Lack of trust is most pronounced during the initial stage of the collaboration and tapers off throughout the course of the project [ 21 ], implying that there are mitigating factors for the effect of distance on trust.
Taking social approaches, such as promoting social exchanges early on in the life of a project [ ], or creating opportunities for casual, non-work-related interactions between collaborators [ ], can improve trust.
However, these types of informal interactions more commonly occur face-to-face [ ]. They found that the absence of body language, subtle voice inflections, facial expressions, etc. The effect of stripping body language, subtle voice inflections, facial expressions, etc. Textual communication was especially worse with regards to establishing and maintaining trust, although audiovisual and audio technologies did have some effect on delayed and fragile trust.
Furthermore, the effectiveness, reliability, and usefulness of the CMC technology used by the virtual team affects trust [ 42 ]. The personal characteristics of team members e. From these works, we see that not only does distance influence trust, but this effect can partially be attributed to the use of communication technology adopted by distance collaborations.
This influence may be further affected by the manner in which communication technology is used, since irregular, unpredictable, and inequitable communication between collaborators hampers trust [ ]. Thus, it is important for future research seeking to address trust in collaboration to consider communication methods, particularly since trust in collaboration is still a relevant issue [ 29 , 30 , ].
Prior work has identified team communication as one of the fundamental challenges associated with virtuality [ 5 ]. Communication in virtual teams is a key predictor of various outcomes such as improved performance and increased commitment [ 76 ].
Often in co-located collaborations, informal communication i. These crucial exchanges often occur after meetings or during unplanned encounters in the hallway [ 8 ] and have profound effects on collaboration. In contrast, communications in virtual teams are often more formal than in co-located settings and focus more on work-related issues [ 13 ].
This is as a result of limited opportunities for the informal and unintentional information exchanges that often happen in shared spaces such as the hallway, water cooler, or parking lot [ 13 ]. Informal contact plays an important role in facilitating trust and critical task awareness [ 2 ]. Spontaneous, informal communication has been shown to foster the feeling of being a part of a cohesive team [ 11 , , ] and assist the provision of corrective feedback [ 8 ].
These types of informal encounters are particularly important for unstable, dynamic groups [ 2 ]. In addition, face-to-face communication is associated with higher levels of consensus within groups, higher perceived quality, more communication, and greater efficiency in completing tasks [ 86 ].
For this reason, it is recommended by many authors that members of virtual teams meet face-to-face when possible, particularly during the initial launch [ , , ], when a face-to-face meeting can create a lasting bridge across geographical, temporal, and socio-cultural distance [ ]. Socio-cultural distance will be discussed in further depth later in Sect.
Opportunities for informal interactions are greatly reduced by geographic distance between collaborators [ 93 , ]. As a result, remote collaborators are often excluded from spontaneous decisions that are made outside formal meetings [ 8 ].
This exclusion is partly as a result of the increased effort needed to reach out and contact a teammate [ ], and likely partly due to the correlation between distance and diminished face-to-face communication [ 52 , , , ]. Geographic barriers to face-to-face communication include an increase in cost and logistics [ 2 ] and the burdens of travel in terms of money and time [ 11 ].
It is no surprise, then, that virtual teams show a marked increase in online activity [ , ] and have a higher reliance on CMC technology [ ]. This technology includes audiovisual, audio, and text-based tools. Use of this technology comes with significant challenges. Synchronous technology i. However, it is important to note that, like in the case of the telephone, initiating spontaneous communication could be perceived as intrusive [ ].
Audiovisual technology is also known to mask both verbal and visual cues in addition to constraining the visual field [ 20 ]. CMC often lacks support for non-direct and nonverbal interactions e.
Thus, the choice of CMC technology has a heavy influence on communication because each method offers a different capacity to convey verbal and nonverbal cues [ ]. It is therefore recommended to use several types of CMC technologies either concurrently e. Virtual teams that rely on CMC in lieu of face-to-face communication are more likely to experience less positive affect and have a diminished affective commitment to their teams [ ].
Furthermore, compared to face-to-face feedback, computer-mediated feedback reduces perceptions of fairness [ 3 ]. This lack of face-to-face contact results in virtual teams having a lower sense of cohesion and personal rapport between team members [ ]. Members of virtual teams may also divide their attention between various tasks while simultaneously participating in teamwork interactions due to the asynchronous nature of communication media, resulting in a lack of investment in the tasks [ ].
As a result, communication timeliness has a higher influence on performance in virtual teams [ ]. Furthermore, virtual teams that rely on CMC technology e. However, overall, communication technologies including text-based tools take more time and effort to effectively communicate information and are missing important social information and nonverbal cues that help establish ties between collaborators [ 64 ].
This has important implications for situations where a high volume of communication is necessary. Due to the extra effort required to communicate through computer-mediated modalities e. Furthermore, when teams use email for communication, it becomes difficult to determine whether the information contained within the email was understood in the absence of vocal and nonverbal cues [ ].
To combat this, Marlow et al. They argue that the use of closed-loop communication will enhance performance in virtual teams [ ].
Since remote collaborations must rely on technology in lieu of face-to-face communication, the level of technical competence of the team members can pose an additional challenge [ ]. Teams that are unable to adopt and integrate basic technology into their everyday workflow are unlikely to use more complicated and sophisticated collaboration technology e. Furthermore, the level of technical infrastructure can also create collaboration challenges [ ].
Technology for remote work fails without adequate technical support or resources. There are some advantages to using commuter-mediated communication technology in virtual teams. For example, asynchronous technology e. CMC is also shown to increase participation among team members [ ], facilitate unique ideas [ 86 , ], and reduce the number of dominant members [ ]. In a similar vein, Fjermestad [ 79 ] found that groups that relied on CMC experienced higher decision quality, depth of analysis, equality of participation, and satisfaction than groups that primarily met face to face.
Finally, virtual teams that do not meet face to face may be better at adapting their conceptualization of a task in response to a team member completing a task in a novel manner [ ]. Additional factors, such as experience with a task, interdependence, and the temporal stage of team development can impact team performance when relying on CMC technology.
For example, when teams have experience with the task at hand, with each other, and with their communication method, there is less of a need for synchronous CMC technology e. In contrast, when teams do not have this extensive experience, there is a greater need for synchronous CMC technology [ 60 ]. Organizational structure, levels of interdependence, and media richness which ranges from face-to-face communication to simple documents also influence the effectiveness of communication [ ].
In addition to this, Maruping and Agarwal [ ] found that matching the functionalities of the CMC technology to specific tasks will result in higher levels of effectiveness in virtual teams.
Furthermore, stage at which a virtual team is at in their development will also affect communication [ ]. Teams in their early stages of development should use CMC technologies that facilitate expression in order to mitigate relationship conflict [ ]. Video-conferencing technologies are particularly suited for this situation being both synchronous and media rich [ ].
From the identification of these challenges, we can clearly see that existing tools and infrastructures have limitations that are preventing communication technology from fully supporting informal interactions. Thus, we are left with a need for other methods that support informal communication in geographically dispersed collaborations.
In Jehn et al. All three types of conflict have been investigated within the context of geographically distributed versus co-located teams, with mixed results. Several researchers have concluded that geographically distributed teams experience higher levels of conflict [ 8 , 46 , , , , ]. In particular, geographically distributed teams are more susceptible to interpersonal [ ] and task-based conflict [ , ]. This effect can likely be attributed to the evidence that conflict in distributed teams is known to escalate and often remains unidentified and unaddressed for long periods of time [ 8 ].
As a result of reliance on computer-mediated communication, virtual teams featuring high geographical dispersion have higher perceptions of unfairness, which also leads to internal conflict [ ]. One pervasive issue is the development of geographically based subgroups within a collaboration that provoke us-versus-them attitudes [ 8 , 46 ]. Interviews exposed that the team was actually comprised of four groups under one manager and did not act or feel like one cohesive team [ 8 ].
These conflicts are similar to those associated with communicating at a distance. Conflicts frequently occur as a consequence of assumptions and incorrectly interpreted communications [ ]. Furthermore, missing information and miscommunications between geographically distant sites result in teammates making harsh attributions about their collaborators at other locations [ 46 ].
These types of intra-group conflicts can have important ramifications for distant collaborations. Us-versus-them attitudes often lead to limited information flow, which in turn leads to reduced cohesion and faulty attributions [ 46 ]. Moreover, intra-team conflict causes problems that result in delays in work progress [ 8 ] and resolution of work issues [ ]. Researchers have identified several things that can mitigate conflict in virtual teams.
Both shared context [ ] and a shared sense of team identity have a moderating effect on conflict [ , ], particularly task and affective conflict [ , ].
Familiarity, in addition, has been shown to reduce conflict [ ]. Spontaneous communication—which, as previously discussed, is primarily achieved face-to-face—has been demonstrated to mitigate conflict in virtual teams, particularly due to its role in facilitating the identification and handling of conflict [ ].
There are also more instances of task conflict in teams that rely heavily on communication technology [ ]. Specific types of conflict can be managed through different forms of computer-mediated communication technology.
Task related conflict, for example, is best managed through synchronous communication technologies such as video-conferencing [ ]. In this case, immediate feedback is not as necessary [ ]. Although the above work has come to an agreement as to whether geographic distance has a negative effect on conflict, contradictions do exist in the literature. This discrepancy is particularly interesting given that the participants in both studies did research and product development, and are therefore comparable.
Thus, it is uncertain as to which conclusion is accurate, presenting an open question. Temporal distance is distinctly different than geographical distance and should be treated as a separate dimension [ 49 ]. Temporal distance can be caused by both time shifts in work patterns and differences in time zones [ ]. In fact, time zone differences and time shifts in work patterns can be manipulated to either decrease or increase temporal distance [ 2 ]. It can be argued that temporal distance is more influential than geographic distance [ 75 , , , ] due to the challenges it poses on coordination [ 49 , 74 , 75 , , , , ].
One key disadvantage to high temporal distance is the reduced number of overlapping work hours between collaboration sites [ 11 , 33 , ].
In fact, temporal distance can lead to incompatible schedules that result in project delays and can only be overcome with careful planning [ ]. Fewer overlapping work hours results in communication breakdowns, such as an increased need for rework and clarifications, and difficulties adjusting to new problems [ 73 , 74 ].
Additionally, reduced overlap in work hours results in coordination delays [ 49 ]. For example, a distant teammate may not be available when their expertise is needed [ 2 ]. In some cases, this unavailability causes the collaborator in need of help to make assumptions based on local culture and preferences in order to reach an immediate resolution of issues—which can cause rework when these assumptions are incorrect [ ].
The issue of the lack of overlapping work hours also causes problems with synchronization; synchronous communication is often significantly limited in temporally dispersed collaborations, which can delay vital feedback [ 2 ] and increase response time [ ]. In fact, scheduling global meetings can be virtually impossible for this reason [ ]. Furthermore, as with geographic distance, temporal distance decreases the number of opportunities for informal communication [ 93 , ] since the window in which all collaborators are available is small.
Communication can be disrupted by temporal distance in other ways. This invisible communication would result in collaborators feeling left out of key decisions, which had toxic effects on the project. This effect is especially unfortunate given that temporal distance makes repairing the consequences of misunderstandings and reworking portions of the project more costly [ 73 ]. In addition to these issues, temporally dispersed collaborations are often plagued by delays, while co-located collaborations are considered more efficient [ 19 ].
Coordination delay increases with temporal distance—delay between collaborators located in the same city was smaller than that for collaborators in different cities, which was smaller than the delay found in collaborators located in different countries [ 49 ].
Delays in responses from collaborators can be especially frustrating and problematic [ ] and can lengthen the amount of time required to resolve issues [ 19 ], sometimes dragging problems out across multiple days [ , ].
Thus, timely completion of tasks in temporally dispersed collaborations is crucial [ ]. Coordination delays are also shown to cause additional problems, particularly decreased performance in terms of meeting key requirements, staying within the budget, and completing work on time [ 49 ]. There are several social approaches to mitigating these issues.
In contrast, Holmstrom et al. However, this technique requires additional oversight time to facilitate the transfer of work from one team to the other, including time to discuss arising issues [ ]. A competing technique is to limit the number of time zones in which sites are located [ ]. Additionally, some coordination issues can be mitigated by careful division of work which takes into account being separated by several time zones [ 49 ].
Technology also plays a key role in mitigating the effects of temporal distance. Asynchronous communication tools e. However, using asynchronous tools is known to increase the amount of time that a collaborator has to wait for a response [ 2 ] and make temporal boundaries more difficult to overcome than spatial boundaries in instances where sites do not have overlap in their workdays [ 49 ]. Furthermore, the process of writing ideas in emails increases the risk of misunderstandings between collaborators [ 57 ] over talking in person or via the telephone.
Finally, developers starting their workday may become overwhelmed by the number of asynchronous messages left during the previous night [ 19 ]. Given these drawbacks to current technology and the unlikelihood that global collaboration is going to stop, it is worthwhile to ask how can we better support communication in temporally distant work.
There is also some question as to whether coordination costs are higher in teams that are temporally distributed. Espinosa and Carmel [ 73 ], however, state that temporal distance reduces coordination costs when team members are not working concurrently because no direct coordination takes place when the two teammates are not working at the same time [ 2 ]. Clearly, this discrepancy needs to be resolved. As previously discussed in Sects. In contrast, perceived a.
These perceptions of proximity have both an affective and a cognitive component [ ]. Perceived distance is a distinctly different idea than spatio-temporal distance and one is not necessarily related to the other [ ]. Stack Overflow for Teams — Start collaborating and sharing organizational knowledge. Create a free Team Why Teams? Learn more about Teams. Asked 12 years, 5 months ago. Modified 5 months ago. Viewed k times. Mike Mooney Mike Mooney Add a comment.
Sorted by: Reset to default. Highest score default Trending recent votes count more Date modified newest first Date created oldest first. They’re used in different places. Al Dass 12 12 silver badges 21 21 bronze badges.
Andomar Andomar k 45 45 gold badges silver badges bronze badges. AshkanMobayenKhiabani you can run both queries against Northwind, which may or may not be installed by default depending on your sql server version. If not you can search for it on s downloads page. AshkanMobayenKhiabani Arunprasanth’s answer below shows returned results which can save you time as opposed to jumping through more learning hoops and time to learn Northwind — Praxiteles. More on windows functions in SQL : blog. Show 1 more comment.
This is part of the means by which software like video games may be made available for different computer architectures such as personal computers and various video game consoles. Program design of small programs is relatively simple and involves the analysis of the problem, collection of inputs, using the programming constructs within languages, devising or using established procedures and algorithms, providing data for output devices and solutions to the problem as applicable. As problems become larger and more complex, features such as subprograms, modules, formal documentation, and new paradigms such as object-oriented programming are encountered.
Large programs involving thousands of line of code and more require formal software methodologies. The task of developing large software systems presents a significant intellectual challenge.
Producing software with an acceptably high reliability within a predictable schedule and budget has historically been difficult; the academic and professional discipline of software engineering concentrates specifically on this challenge. Errors in computer programs are called ” bugs “. They may be benign and not affect the usefulness of the program, or have only subtle effects.
But in some cases, they may cause the program or the entire system to ” hang “, becoming unresponsive to input such as mouse clicks or keystrokes, to completely fail, or to crash. Bugs are usually not the fault of the computer. Since computers merely execute the instructions they are given, bugs are nearly always the result of programmer error or an oversight made in the program’s design. Computers have been used to coordinate information between multiple locations since the s.
The U. In time, the network spread beyond academic and military institutions and became known as the Internet. The emergence of networking involved a redefinition of the nature and boundaries of the computer. Computer operating systems and applications were modified to include the ability to define and access the resources of other computers on the network, such as peripheral devices, stored information, and the like, as extensions of the resources of an individual computer.
Initially these facilities were available primarily to people working in high-tech environments, but in the s the spread of applications like e-mail and the World Wide Web , combined with the development of cheap, fast networking technologies like Ethernet and ADSL saw computer networking become almost ubiquitous.
In fact, the number of computers that are networked is growing phenomenally. A very large proportion of personal computers regularly connect to the Internet to communicate and receive information. A computer does not need to be electronic , nor even have a processor , nor RAM , nor even a hard disk.
While popular usage of the word “computer” is synonymous with a personal electronic computer, [l] the modern definition of a computer is literally: ” A device that computes , especially a programmable [usually] electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.
There is active research to make computers out of many promising new types of technology, such as optical computers , DNA computers , neural computers , and quantum computers. Most computers are universal, and are able to calculate any computable function , and are limited only by their memory capacity and operating speed. However different designs of computers can give very different performance for particular problems; for example quantum computers can potentially break some modern encryption algorithms by quantum factoring very quickly.
There are many types of computer architectures :. Of all these abstract machines , a quantum computer holds the most promise for revolutionizing computing. The ability to store and execute lists of instructions called programs makes computers extremely versatile, distinguishing them from calculators.
The Church—Turing thesis is a mathematical statement of this versatility: any computer with a minimum capability being Turing-complete is, in principle, capable of performing the same tasks that any other computer can perform.
Therefore, any type of computer netbook , supercomputer , cellular automaton , etc. A computer will solve problems in exactly the way it is programmed to, without regard to efficiency, alternative solutions, possible shortcuts, or possible errors in the code. Computer programs that learn and adapt are part of the emerging field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Artificial intelligence based products generally fall into two major categories: rule-based systems and pattern recognition systems. Rule-based systems attempt to represent the rules used by human experts and tend to be expensive to develop.
Pattern-based systems use data about a problem to generate conclusions. Examples of pattern-based systems include voice recognition , font recognition, translation and the emerging field of on-line marketing. As the use of computers has spread throughout society, there are an increasing number of careers involving computers. The need for computers to work well together and to be able to exchange information has spawned the need for many standards organizations, clubs and societies of both a formal and informal nature.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Automatic general-purpose device for performing arithmetic or logical operations. For other uses, see Computer disambiguation. Computers and computing devices from different eras. Main articles: History of computing and History of computing hardware. For a chronological guide, see Timeline of computing.
Main article: Analog computer. Main article: Stored-program computer. Main articles: Transistor and History of the transistor. Main articles: Integrated circuit and Invention of the integrated circuit.
Further information: Planar process and Microprocessor. See also: Classes of computers. Main articles: Computer hardware , Personal computer hardware , Central processing unit , and Microprocessor. Main article: History of computing hardware. Main articles: CPU design and Control unit. Main articles: Central processing unit and Microprocessor. Main article: Arithmetic logic unit.
Main articles: Computer memory and Computer data storage. Main article: Computer multitasking. Main article: Multiprocessing. Main article: Software.
Main articles: Computer program and Computer programming. Main article: Programming language. Main article: Low-level programming language. Main article: High-level programming language.
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. July Learn how and when to remove this template message. Main article: Software bug. Main articles: Computer networking and Internet. Main article: Human computer. See also: Harvard Computers. Glossary of computers Computability theory Computer security Glossary of computer hardware terms History of computer science List of computer term etymologies List of fictional computers List of pioneers in computer science Pulse computation TOP list of most powerful computers Unconventional computing.
The containers thus served as something of a bill of lading or an accounts book. In order to avoid breaking open the containers, first, clay impressions of the tokens were placed on the outside of the containers, for the count; the shapes of the impressions were abstracted into stylized marks; finally, the abstract marks were systematically used as numerals; these numerals were finally formalized as numbers.
Eventually the marks on the outside of the containers were all that were needed to convey the count, and the clay containers evolved into clay tablets with marks for the count.
Schmandt-Besserat estimates it took years. All of the architectures listed in this table, except for Alpha, existed in bit forms before their bit incarnations were introduced. Although the control unit is solely responsible for instruction interpretation in most modern computers, this is not always the case. Some computers have instructions that are partially interpreted by the control unit with further interpretation performed by another device.
For example, EDVAC , one of the earliest stored-program computers, used a central control unit that interpreted only four instructions.
All of the arithmetic-related instructions were passed on to its arithmetic unit and further decoded there. These so-called computer clusters can often provide supercomputer performance at a much lower cost than customized designs. While custom architectures are still used for most of the most powerful supercomputers, there has been a proliferation of cluster computers in recent years.
However, this method was usually used only as part of the booting process. Most modern computers boot entirely automatically by reading a boot program from some non-volatile memory. An x compatible microprocessor like the AMD Athlon 64 is able to run most of the same programs that an Intel Core 2 microprocessor can, as well as programs designed for earlier microprocessors like the Intel Pentiums and Intel This contrasts with very early commercial computers, which were often one-of-a-kind and totally incompatible with other computers.
Interpreted languages are translated into machine code on the fly, while running, by another program called an interpreter.
Computer hardware may fail or may itself have a fundamental problem that produces unexpected results in certain situations. For instance, the Pentium FDIV bug caused some Intel microprocessors in the early s to produce inaccurate results for certain floating point division operations. This was caused by a flaw in the microprocessor design and resulted in a partial recall of the affected devices. Online Etymology Dictionary. Archived from the original on 16 November Retrieved 19 August Numbers through the ages 1st ed.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Education. ISBN OCLC Retrieved 1 July Bibcode : Natur. PMID S2CID Archived from the original on 16 December Retrieved 12 March Wiet, V. Elisseeff, P. Wolff, J. Naudu Transactions of the American Philosophical Society.
JSTOR IEEE Micro. Turk J Elec Engin. Archived PDF from the original on 15 September Retrieved 21 April Archived from the original on 20 February Retrieved 28 January Charles Babbage, Father of the Computer.
Crowell-Collier Press. Online stuff. Science Museum. Archived from the original on 7 August Retrieved 1 August New Scientist. Archived from the original on 5 August Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 12 July Retrieved 7 January The Life and Work of Konrad Zuse. EPE Online. Archived from the original on 1 June Retrieved 17 June The New York Times.
Archived from the original on 4 November Retrieved 15 February Der Computer. Mein Lebenswerk in German 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
The Story of IT: Zuse”. Archived from the original on 18 September Retrieved 1 June Archived PDF from the original on 9 August Retrieved 28 September A Brief History of Computing. Springer Nature. Des Moines Register. Burks The First Electronic Computer. Archived from the original on 29 July BBC News.
Archived from the original on 10 November Retrieved 14 October The Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 February Archived from the original on 4 February Retrieved 24 November With modules we start to have answers to these questions based on the requirements of our project.
Integrating 3rd party library functionality into modularized projects is one of the most interesting parts of using modules because modules give us tools we never had before to deal with ODR One Definition Rule and name resolution. It is easy to integrate into projects because it is a single header file and the interfaces are simple—which plays to our advantage in deciding what parts of the library we want to expose.
You will immediately notice that the color constants are mysteriously missing. This is because these constants are defined with static linkage in the header file so we cannot export them directly and the reason is buried in standardese. It is simpler to remember that you cannot export an internal linkage entity i. The way to get around this is wrap them in a function which has module linkage:. Once we have these functions, we need to replace any instance of olc::COLOR with its respective call to our exported color function.
And that is it! Just as before, you add this to the CMakeLists. Once you have gone through the exercise of modularizing more and more of the project you might find that your main program begins to reflect the header file version:. To understand what I am talking about let us look at a header file equivalent of grouping common functionality.
The problem, of course, is while this is convenient and you do not need to think about which specific file to include for your current project, you end up paying the cost of every header file in the package regardless of if you use it or not.
We can also do the same for anything under Util. This leads us to a rather, I think, respectable looking ball-pit. It was a little bit of a journey getting here, and there are learnings along the way.
You can check out the code, configure, and build it the same as we covered earlier using Visual Studio version With modules there is an up-front cost in building our interfaces. With the old inclusion model, we did not have to build our include files explicitly only implicitly. We end up building more up front, but the result is that we can REPL our main program and its components much, much faster.
Here is a snapshot of the difference:. Note: these times were an average of 10 runs. You can see the results yourself by observing the c1xx. The process of using named modules in complex projects can be time consuming, but this type of refactor pays off in both reducing development costs associated with recompiling and code hygiene. Named modules give us so much more than simply better compile times and in the above we have only scratched the surface of what is possible.
Stay tuned for more modules educational content from us in the future! As always, we welcome your feedback. Feel free to send any comments through e-mail at visualcpp microsoft. Also, feel free to follow me on Twitter starfreakclone. For suggestions or bug reports, let us know through DevComm.
Microsoft Project – Wikipedia
Microsoft Project difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free a project management software product, developed and sold by Microsoft. It is designed to assist a project manager in developing a schedule miceosoft, assigning resources to tasks, tracking progress, managing the budgetand behween workloads. Microsoft Difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free was the company’s third Microsoft Windows-based application.
Within a few years after its launch, it became the dominant PC-based project management software. It is part of the Microsoft Office family but projecf never been included in any of the Office suites. It is available currently in two editions, Standard and Ffree. Microsoft Project’s proprietary file format is. Alan M. Boyd, Microsoft’s Manager of Product Development, frree the application as an internal tool to help manage the huge number of software difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free that were in differebce at any time inside the company.
Boyd wrote the specification and engaged a local Seattle company to develop the prototype. The first commercial version of Project was released for DOS in Microsoft bought all rights to the software in and released version 2. Version 3 for DOS micrksoft released in The first Windows version was released inand was labelled version 1 for Windows. In a Freee version was released.
Development continued until Microsoft Project 4. InMicrosoft stopped development of most of its Mac applications and did not offer a new microxoft of Office untilafter the creation of the new Microsoft Macintosh Business Unit the year prior. The Mac Business Unit never released 20166 updated version of Project, and the last version 20166 not run natively on macOS. Microsoft Project 1.
It came bundled with Windows 2. The setup program runs in DOS, like most Windows-based applications diffegence the time. Microsoft Project 3. The setup program now runs in Windows, and it is based on Microsoft’s own setup program, which was also used by e. Microsoft Visual Basic 2. Microsoft Project 4. It was the last bit version. This version allowed user to consolidate up to 80 projects. Microsoft Project 95 4. Updated version, called Microsoft Project 4.
Additionally it was the last version to open Project 3. Microsoft Project 98 was microsift bit, and the first to use Tahoma font in the menu bars, to contain Office Assistantlike all Office 97 applications, introduced view bar, AutoFilter, task splitting, Assignment Information dialog, resource availability dates, project status date, user-entered actual costs, new task types, multiple critical paths, difference between microsoft office 2013 and 2010 free download что controls, ability to rename custom fields, Web publishing features, new database format, Task Usage, Tracking Gantt and Resource Usage views, Web features, Web toolbar, PERT analysis features, resource contouring, cost rate tables, effort-driven scheduling, cross-project linking, indicators, progress lines, ability to save project files in HTML format, ability to analyze beteeen data in Excel, improved limits for the number of tasks, resources, outline посетить страницу источник etc.
It was the last version mjcrosoft run on Windows NT 3. Project 98 Frse was a major ans release addressing several issues in Project Microsoft Project was the first to use personalized menus, Microsoft Agent -based Office Assistant and to use Windows Installer -based setup interface, like all Office applications, and introduced Microsoft Project Central later renamed Microsoft Project Server.
Notable new features include ability to create personal Gantt charts, ability to apply filters in Network Diagram view, AutoSave, task calendars, ability to create projects based on templates and to specify default save path and format, graphical indicators, material resources, deadline dates, OLE DB, grouping, outline codes, estimated durations, month duration, value lists and formulas custom fields, contoured resource availability, ability to clear baseline, variable row height, in-cell editing, fill handle, ability to set fiscal year in timescale, single document interfaceaccessibility features, COM add-ins, pluggable language user interface, roaming user and Terminal Services support, ability to set task and project priority up to 1, previously 10 and HTML help.
Diffetence SR-1 difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free several bugs. It was also the last version to run on Windows NT 4. It was available betwen two editions for the first time, Standard and Professional. Office Assistant is installed but not enabled by default. Microsoft Project was the last to contain the menu bar and difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free. Office Assistant was removed entirely.
Additionally it was the first bit version. Volume licensing activation was introduced in this version. New features include integrated communication Skype for Business is required. Microsoft Project is the last to support Windows 7 and Windows 8. Difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free Project runs only on Windows 10and it contains features carried over from Office New features include ability to link tasks using a drop-down menu, Task Summary Name field, timeline bar labels and task progress, accessibility improvements.
Versions for Windows were released in v1. The project creates budgets based on assignment work and resource rates. As resources are assigned to tasks and assignment work estimated, the program calculates the cost, equal to the work times the rate, which rolls up to the task level and then to any summary tasks and finally to the project level. Resource definitions people, equipment and materials can be shared between projects using a shared rifference pool.
Each resource can have its own calendar, which defines what days and shifts a resource is available. Difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free rates are used to calculate resource assignment costs which are rolled up and summarized at the resource level. Each resource can be assigned to multiple tasks in multiple plans and each task can be assigned multiple resources, and the application schedules task work based on differenfe resource availability as defined in the resource calendars.
All resources can be defined in label without limit. Therefore, it cannot determine how many finished products can be produced with a given amount of raw materials. This makes Microsoft Project unsuitable for solving problems of available materials difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free production.
Additional software is necessary to manage a complex facility that produces physical goods. The application creates critical path schedules, and critical chain and event chain methodology third-party add-ons also are available. Schedules can be resource leveledand chains are visualized proiect a Gantt chart. Additionally, Microsoft Project can recognize different classes of proiect. These different classes of users can have differing access levels to projects, views, micosoft other data.
Custom objects such as fre, views, tables, filters, and fields are stored in an enterprise global which is shared by all users. The project is available in two editions, Standard and Professional; both editions are available either as 32 or 64bit options. The Professional edition includes all the features of the Standard version, plus more features like team collaboration tools and the difference between microsoft project 2016 and 2013 free to connect to Microsoft Project Server.
Microsoft Project includes the Fluent user interface known as the Ribbon. What’s new in Project includes new Reports section, better integration with other Microsoft products, and appearance of user interface items: [10]. Project adds a new Reports section, backwards-compatibility with Project Serverbetter integration with other Microsoft products, and improved appearance of user interface items:.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Project management software. Office Beta Адрес The Verge. Retrieved October 5, Retrieved November 12, Project Management Zone. Retrieved August 6, News Center. September 18, Retrieved January 20, Archived from the original on January 12, Retrieved May 6, October 30, Microsoft Project Training.
Retrieved October 10, Retrieved June 10, May 20, May 23, May 12, Microsoft Office. History Microsoft projec Discontinued shared tools Accounting Docs.
Authority control: Привожу ссылку libraries Czech Republic. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit Download git bash for windows 10 32 bit history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file.
Download as PDF Printable version. Wikimedia Commons. Microsoft Project screenshot, showing a blank project. Microsoft Windows.