@jh71283: hmm, so your master plan to have a SL application that emulates an HTML5 canvas so that you can use WebGL on it? If you ever get it to work, I suspect you'll receive the Rube Goldberg Award. Repeatedly.
I was going to second fanbaby's suggestion (the JS one, the first one is just insane), but if you are constrained to stay within SL then things are getting hairier. Silverlight 3D libraries will probably not get much love now that SL5 is out, but that's the most straightforward way to go. Good luck.
@electricninja33: Spot on, it's planned obsolescence. And that's because maintaining old code becomes exponentially more expensive as time goes by.
But then, we have known about XP's EOL for years. There are just still 21 months of life left in XP, so let's do a little math... take away the time needed to upgrade (nobody in their right mind would run their business on an OS without security patches, and those who plan to are just a lawsuit waiting to happen). Then take away the time it takes to design, develop, test and deploy the product. What's left? A few months? One year? Is it worthwhile to start a new development for that?
@figuerres - I agree that XP is been kept running longer than it should. But that is because Microsoft failed so hard with Vista.
I agree with you. What is making me upset is that they are making me pay for their mistakes. I want them to find a way to kill their products that does not cause me to have to suffer for their mistakes.
They messed up with Vista, they messed up with the SP3 and IE8. This has resulted in the prologed life of Windows XP. This FACT is there: A quarter of all machines in North America are using it. Developers should not have to take the hit (in either lost customers or extra development and support costs) for Microsoft's mistakes.
Making developers suffer because they have caused XP to live longer than it should have is NOT the right way to force out XP.
Seriously, the Vista alibi is getting old. Whatever opinion you have on Vista, the hard numbers tell you that business users are still massively excercising their downgrade rights today (ask yourself how is it possible that 80% of your customers are still on XP, three years after Windows 7 was released).
That's not Vista, it's companies running poorly written software that doesn't run in Vista+ that it would cost way too much to fix. They are squeezing the most out of their investment, that's understandable, but they are the ultimate reason why XP is still around. Vista, SP3, IE8: that's utter BS.
I feel your pain. Had to maintain an ASP.NET 1.1 web application for ages, and that got me back to VS 2003 over and over. They should include that as a valid cause for medical use of controlled substances.
@ZippyV: actually, there's an easier way: VS2012 can use VS2010 solutions without upgrading. One can always create the solution in VS2010 (on a machine not tainted with .NET 4.5), then develop with VS2012 targeting .NET 4. In the remote case where you get a bug during testing that doesn't repro in VS2012, it's always possible to go back to the VS2010 machine and debug away.
@Bass: Technology does replace human labor with machines, and that may temporarily affect unemployment. But historically, it has created a host of new jobs out of thin air and I suspect the two effects pretty much balance out.
Take the jobs that Foxxconn is allegedly about to cut: those jobs simply didn't exist thirty years back, neither at Foxxconn or at some other company, as cellphones where just something fit for a Dick Tracy comic, or something. The same, on different timescales, go for software, game consoles, internet, it's a long list.
I believe you cannot have one effect without the other: by compressing the cost of some commodities, technology frees spending capacity and then the void gets filled by some other need that technology can satisfy.
Juvenile as this is, I always consider Easter Egging fun, at least as long as it's not in the customer's face. Not something I would waste my time with these days, but I wouldn't even make much of it; considering it sexist means blowing the whole thing out of proportion: it would be like an induist taking offence for all the 0xDEADBEEF.
Not to mention that I met a few female developers that weren't above such stunts. Sexist my 0xA55, that's just someone trying to make a case out of thin air.
P.S.: If there's something I found really disturbing about this story is the fact that they used 0xB00B135 in a previous occasion. That's distasteful and disrespectful of hexadecimal which has a perfectly usable "E" in it.
@spivonious:I wouldn't bet on their instant death either: if the phones aren't complete junk they'll find their own supporters. Firefox is a recognizable brand, so it might be tempting for some OEM to try and differentiate. It remains to be seen if and how this can affect Google.
More specifically, I always thought about Google as the sugar daddy of OSS: creepy beyond belief, but too rich to send packing. This might indicate that something is changing, or at least that Mozilla wants that to change. I have a hunch the IP battlefield is going to become weird...
Interesting times ahead.
@spivonious: my bet is "relevance": they were the only major browser vendor out there without a smartphone for which theirs was the default and only choice. Which isn't the reason why the others are making smartphones, but then everybody seems to be fighting a different war...
I won't hold my breath for the glorious fates of the Firefox OS: unless they offer something that simply blows the competitors away, they'll have to face the same difficulties that WP7 faced (late to the party, no apps) except that it's now a lot later in the game and, of course, Mozilla doesn't have the kind of cash Microsoft has.