11 minutes ago, Ian2 wrote

Oh crap, do BUILD attendees get an early XBOX One this year then? 

I was thinking that...but it seems too bulky to travel with (unless they can ship it to attendees) and it's still being tweaked so it might not be what actually gets released, whereas the Surface 2012 attendees received was more or less the same as the one released two months later.

Also, I'm thinking its going to run Windows 8 Apps, is that an unrealistic expectation?

Probably in the same way that WP might in the future. Assuming common APIs, apps would need to support multiple view modes and maybe use #ifdefs to account for platform specific behavior.

I was hoping for a cable card slot but no word that they put one in

While they're doing broadcast TV interaction right now, it seems to be more for transitionary purposes. I imagine they'd want to invest more in IPTV stuff.

8 minutes ago, figuerres wrote

in the past I have seen IR cables used to slave a cable box but that is not very clean.  cable boxes often have Ethernet in them but hidden from the user .... wonder if that might be one way they do it?

I read that it will control directly via HDMI for more modern boxes, but will have that IR cable fallback (like in WMC) for older boxes.

14 minutes ago, PopeDai wrote

I've heard rumors the name might be "Xbox 8"

Off by seven.

13 minutes ago, PopeDai wrote

My money is still on the new Xbox being named simply "Xbox".

So, basically doing a 180 on naming?

The rumor has it that they wanted to release with a non-ad experience to show users a better youtube experience which could be compared to a crappier ad-ridden version. Take away the candy and it generates bad perception.

 "YouTube is consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, but Google has refused to work with us to develop an app on par with other platforms. Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience, ratings and feedback have been overwhelmingly positive.  We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers"

EDIT: Updated with actual quote from MJF's article.

EDIT 2: From Verge's comment section...

12 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

Oh if only this were true.

Yeah, you still have to worry about escaping data before it gets presented. And then there's reflected XSS...you're not immune to session hijacking (if you use sessions) or CSRF vulnerabilities. You also have to think about CORS with an AJAX based scheme, Security issues don't just magically disappear.

I'm right now doing a revamp of my personal site, too, and decided to try foundation. I absolutely love it. Although, I'm probably not going to use MVC - I've gotten into the habit of just doing web service/knockout+html5. If I later want a holographic representation of my life, I can just consume the existing web service.

23 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

I'll give them bonus points for having Surface RTs on the gambling table, though.

But it's on the wrong table. You're supposed to have an uneasy feeling at the gambling area, so how can you even attempt to promote your own product there?

I hated these ads when I saw them. Aside from the obvious "no-no" about mentioning your competitor's name and the overall cheapness, on just implementation they reminded me of high school drama productions in which the important lines and moments are completely detached from the surrounding material, almost as if they were just added to the scene afterwards.

Like in the case of Outlook, why are these cheap ads necessary when the product speaks for itself. I'd rather see ads with testimonials how an org lowered TCO and increased productivity w/365.

27 minutes ago, PopeDai wrote

They're watching me? Dang, just as I was getting used to enjoying working without any pants on.

"I see you"

The last one is awesome, though.

57 seconds ago, PopeDai wrote

Personally I'd have preferred it if Nokia had a nomenclature like "Lumia 920 CDMA" or "Lumia 820 for T-Mobile".

AFAIK, Verizon had a crappier Nokia WP while AT&T got the shiny 920. The 928 could be just be for making Verizon users feel like that they got the latest and greatest rather than a late phone model.

15 minutes ago, Srikanth_t wrote

Lumia 928....really ? really ?

Yes. Did you think they'd make only one phone a year?

The rest of your post has to do with the software, which doesn't need to change for every hardware release, and thus, isn't really relevant.

However,

Missing custom fields

what exactly do you mean by this?

11 hours ago, Charles wrote

 but it will be interesting to see how long it does live...

Do Operating Systems ever die? When you power a machine off, you don't SEE the OS, but for all we know, it could be having a party behind your monitor.

2 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

And how do you do static pages with Razor? I want them to be able to use the global layout, so I do plan to convert the static pages to .cshtml. But it seems you can't just serve static .cshtml files without a controller serving them up as views.

Well, if you tried to render a view without a controller, you'd be breaking out of MVC. Not sure how you'd use the global layout outside of MVC...seems like a lot of internal plumbing that you would have to manually execute somehow.

I don't think you could do much with the codebehind pages w/o modifications...the only way to serve them up properly so that they still work would be through an iframe. But then, you'd still have to modify those pages to strip out the menus and surrounding chrome.

My suggestion for the static pages still stands...you could just use jquery to load in something like the #contentInner section div into your MVC view (just have one view based on id). You wouldn't have to modify each static page in that case.