JonR800

Charles wrote:

I'm not sure I fully understand the problem here. Programming concurrent applications is hard and there is no single silver bullet to make it easy (it's a hard problem). Accelerator is but one approach to a specific subset of the problem, just as Software Transactional Memory (video to appear on C9 next week) and language-level solutions are. I am just investigating what's being done around the company to address this important programming topic.

Can you elaborate more on what you see as the problem with this approach? I'm open to suggestions, as always. In fact, I'd love some more feedback.

C

Sorry that must have come out wrong.  I'm not complaining that there are videos covering the similar topics.

I'm just surprised that projects with overlapping goals are unaware of each other.  It seems to me that the CCR team and the Accelerator team might be able to share some useful informationg with each other.  I think it's great that you are able to drop in the recommendation that they take a look at each other's solutions.  Again, I'm just surprised it doesn't happen automatically.

However, and let this be my disclaimer, I'm not a Microsoft insider and further have no clue how these things work.

jvervoorn wrote:

I am trobled by how many times charles is the one trying to introduce groups to what other people are working on. It would be great to improve the communcation that should be going on while at the same time cutting down on the e-mail that is overwhelming you all there.

I think the exact same thing every time.  A lot of projects with overlapping goals.  I know Microsoft is a big company, but a keyword searchable database of current/past projects might do wonders.

scobleizer wrote:

I disagree with you. Customers don't know what they want.

Did you know you wanted an iPod before you saw it?

Maybe I'm an exception, but yes I did.  I knew I wanted an mp3 player to fit in my pocket, hold my entire collection, have decent battery life, and allow me to navigate it easily.  I think a lot of geeks / music people were clamoring for it.  Was my vision exactly the iPod?  No.

Customers do know the functionality they want, they just don't know the specifics or care about the implementation process.

Will current DFS / FRS users have a seamless upgrade to R2?  Or will we be required to reconfigure to take advantage of DFSR?

Also I don't think Scoble blabbed too long.   His interviewee just had a lot to say.