Anyone who uses the phrase "web scale" without it being a direct reference to that MongoDB cartoon, or who chooses development technologies based on how "cool" they are is a person not to hire. Doubly so if they ever refer to themselves as a rockstar developer.
I tried. It doesn't do anything in IE11, except turn some circles red. Bit of a fail for an online training course.
Visual Studio's Setup projects had a tendency to break the rules of MSI at times anyway, so not using them probably did you a favour in the long run. MSI was a great technology, but it suffered immensely from poor quality tooling throughout and a very complex rule set if you tried to do it manually. You really needed tools like InstallSheild AdminStudio to actually build good quality installers, but the price of that bordered on the insane.
If you aren't careful doing that, you can end up with a package that can't be installed alongside the one you decompiled, or later versions of it.
The patent system in the US is broken, it incentivises the USPO for accepting more patents. Since its not really in their favour to reject applications, hundreds of dumb patents that should rightfully get thrown out are instead granted. The defence of this practice is that they can be overruled later in court, except that doing so is usually cost prohibitive. This could be fixed without even significant reform to the patent rules - make it financially better for the USPO to reject invalid patents from day 1, patent trolling would rapidly become a thing of the past.
Simply having patents on genuinely unique ideas is not a bad thing though. If patents didn't exist, you'd still be screwed as a small developer because the big boys could copy your idea and push you out of market without batting an eyelid. You need that protection even more than they do.
There is a fairly substantial difference between making money from patents for actual, genuinely useful, inventions and innovations and "patent trolling" - a practice that largely involves sitting on vague or overly broad patents until after products have made a lot of money using supposedly covered tech, then pretty much extorting money in the knowledge that settling the case will probably be cheaper than fighting it, even if you're in the right.
Um, no. Attach rate is the amount of games the average console owner will have across the entire lifespan of the console. For most of the previous few generations, it's less than 10.
This is really only an "issue" for anyone who owns a larger than normal number of games AND is constantly going back and forth between all of them. And displaying the number of GB of space used wouldn't change the fact it's an issue either, because you'd still have to delete an older title to play one not installed, it'd just be a more laborious manual process. The PS4 will be identical in this regard, because it's a fundamental issue when games have to be installed onto the hard disk.
Nope, it's easy for a compiler to spit out four instructions instead of one. It's much, much harder to deal with the typically non-orthogonal register usage of CISC designs, not to mention that optimising around big complex instructions is actually much harder to do.
x86 won out despite everything, including Intel's various attempts to kill it, because there is an enormous amount of x86 software out there that people need to run.
I'd hazard a guess it's more likely a network issue, are the laptops connected by wifi as well as physical connections, for example? I'd also consider whether different security software/settings get pushed out to laptops too, they may be more heavily constrained to protect against the fact they can spend time off-network, for example.
Also, from an architectural point of view, I'd be inclined to serve the resultant files over HTTP rather than trying to go the rather round-the-houses way of using a file share. You'll almost certainly find that a much more reliable route, since you already know the client can viably establish an HTTP connection in order to run the app.
Please tell me where you are getting this information. I attended Build 2011 and this was exactly what I thought, but here we are in 2013 and I am less confident than ever that what you say is what is going to be done.
Let's just go with UI. I can't create a WinRT window from .NET. I can't create a live tile from .NET. I can't interact with WinRT contracts like searching, sharing, etc.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, but this is how it's been for a while and I've heard nothing from Build that even hints that this will ever be improved. And if it never happens, then the premise of all of the above is false.
You can if you create a Windows Store app in .NET. You can't from a desktop app, but that has absolutely nothing to do with .NET because you just can't do it from any desktop app regardless of what development tools you use.
Most of the WinRT stuff just fundamentally requires the WinRT sandbox and the ability of the OS to have complete lifecycle management of an application. Contracts like sharing, searching etc need the concepts of application identity that simply doesn't exist in the Win32 world as well as the ability to safely stop/start applications to enable temporary use of their functionality.