Quote "we're over delivering on value".  My response.  You're over delivering on DRM and big brother Orwellian features like having to connect once a day to use your Xbox games.  You could have put less money into that part of the development, cut the costs, had happier consumers, had more pre-sales, probably end up keeping your loyal customers, probably end up with a better bottom line. 

I can't imagine the goal was to push Sony out to a 2 to 1 margin in pre-sales (just read that a half hour ago).  Everyday there's new info to make people grumble a little more.  The indie developers having to go through publishers now was just the latest in the "hey, let's alienate every consumer and supporter we can" campaign. 

Frankly, if Microsoft is going to keep making face palm after face palm side step then they should just stop talking and calling attention to the negative atmosphere they have created and cultivated.

4 days ago, Dirtbagg wrote

Also, while I was waiting to go into the interview I asked one of the other employees what they programmed in. His response was Visual Basic

 

Most code I deal with only a daily basis could be written in VB or C# almost verbatim back and forth.  For most apps I just don't see much of a difference other than syntax preference and what the employees have their stride in.

If I could make an observation, it sounds like you had a low opinion of them anyway for using Visual Basic or that you were already looking down on your future colleagues (maybe I read the sarcasm wrong).  One thing I've learned is that the language a professional developer uses doesn't necessarily dictate their competence level. 

I'm not starting a VB vs. C# flame war, just saying don't judge a book by it's cover.  Anyway, best of luck with the XAML and C# learning. 

1 hour ago, kettch wrote

@jinx101: Well, people griped when transparency was added to Windows in the first place. People gotta have something to b!tch about or they're not happy.

Touche. 

Frankly, I always liked the Aero transparencies but I also don't mind the desktop window changes in Windows 8 (to me those are small changes that don't affect anything I actually do so I don't think much about them).  I would have been happy either way. 

2 days ago, Bas wrote

I like the use of transparancy, though.

Edit:

Oh no, the camera app is shouting at me.

I like the transparency also.  Although, once Windows 8 got rid of most transparencies I was told they were now dated, and cheesy.  Are they hip again because Apple is doing it?

What happens, in "the cloud", when Xbox live in it's current form ceases to exist or just stops working because your Xbox One isn't supported anymore and all of your games just stop working?  Does what you paid for stop working all together, a model that forces you to upgrade to continue to use what you own?  Have details on this issue or how long your box will work been layed out somewhere? 

I've been burned by cloud services previously (by going out of business or the service changing rendering what you have useless without an upgrade). 

51 minutes ago, wastingtime​withforums wrote

@cbae:

2.  How stupid was Microsoft not to envision the backlash, especially after all these forewarnings?

I read a quote where they did said they expected a sort of backlash but that they thought after "education" people would understand (I'm not sure how they're going to educate me to want the video camera on 24/7, or have it temporarily brick itself if it's not on the Internet, but w/e). 

"The reaction wasn't a surprise to Mehdi, though. In fact, he said a lot of the way people have responded to Microsoft's moves was "kind of as we expected."" (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/)

It is yet to be seen whether the storm they've created is short term like they guess or whether it will tank the system.  We can all speculate but none of us will know until it happens.

31 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

@wastingtimewithforums: well, there is always Blue, which is focused to address user feedback. It is not MS policy to address user feedback before Blue release.

It's yet to be seen what Blue which actually end up with and how far MS will go in addressing concerns of their desktop/non-touch base.  I'm cynical, so I'm hoping for the best but expecting more of the same.  I'll believe their addressing the issues when I see it (and if they do, I will be the first person to jump on board and start singing the praises, happily).

Also, I just wanted to state (because of the toxic mood on this topic), whereas I'm kind of ticked off at this topic and the direction Microsoft has chosen, I'm in no way angry at anyone here for differing views even if I don't agree. 

According to Microsoft (via Forbes), if you want to play offline with a non Orwellian box then they have a product for you, the Xbox 360.  I like the Xbox 360 better than the PS3.  I want the Xbox to do well (I personally think the voice activated entertainment portion is appealing). 

That said, the blind arrogance is obnoxious that there's no way I'm going to purchase an Xbox One without some kind of change, and I don't think I'm alone judging by all of the negative buzz MS has created.  I had PS2 instead of an XBox, I got an Xbox 360 instead of a PS3, at this point I will probably go with a PS4 instead of the Xbox One.  I made my choices off of what the platforms had to offer in each generation that I wanted (I'm not married to a company). 

If Microsoft doesn't course correct we can all re-convene in a year in this topic and hand out our told ya so's to whoever deserves them.  I personally hope that MS meets their customers in the middle, I don't see that happening though until they lose money because that seems to be the only real motivator (fear of losing money, no.. actually losing it, yes).  Since MS doesn't care what I have to say, I can only vote with my money which I will do.

a moment ago, JeremyJ wrote

@jinx101: Actually in my opinion Microsoft's way is the better way because it at least gives a standardized approach to DRM.  Letting every publisher choose their own scheme is just asking for trouble.

I'm drawn on this comment.  I kind of agree, and I kind of don't.  I agree because a standard approach is so much more transparent and straight forward and as a consumer you know what you're getting into.  I kind of disagree because allowing publishers to implement or not will still give consumers the choice to support or not support those publishers for their choice.

I agree though that 50 different types of DRM has the potential 50 kinds of messy though.

It didn't take Sony didn't take long to take some wind out of their sails (sales) did it?  Hehe.  I'm curious how publishers will respond, that variable will be important.

1 minute ago, wastingtime​withforums wrote

*snip*

Since there is no forced internet connection, the publisher have less leeway to enforce something.

That's not to say the publisher can't force an internet connection for that specific game.

18 seconds ago, JeremyJ wrote

Well that was fast:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/11/4419566/sony-jack-tretton-publishers-can-choose-to-enforce-drm

So it appears that Sony is taking the exact same approach as Microsoft in regards to DRM.

That's not as good as initially advertised, but it's not exactly the same either.  We have less details (err, no details) on how an individual company would create their DRM if they choose to and those are important details (as opposed to a system wide, all of your stuff will stop working if you're not on the internet after 24 hours).

4 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

You know Microsoft doesn't give a * about you, and you're wise enough to know that neither does Sony. Then why are you making such a big stink about it? Are complaining that Microsoft is being too honest about not giving a * about you and hope that they'd be more subversive about it like Sony is?

His point is that Sony is doing what customers are asking for (whether for selfish reasons or not) and Microsoft is falling into it's now famous pattern of alienating most of it's loyal customers. 

2 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Spin, spin, spin. Do you think Sony really gives a * about you, the consumer?

Nope.  They care about money.  They are betting they can make more cash from consumers flocking to them in droves than towing the line with heavy DRM.  Microsoft is betting the opposite (at this point).  This is an example of why competition in the free market is good. 

2 hours ago, spivonious wrote

MS is betting that the average consumer will want Windows 8 on their TV and be able to play the latest games too. I think that is a very safe bet in today's market.

The average consumer doesn't want Windows 8 in general.  That was a bad bet at this time. 

This maybe the first time I've said this in years.  Sony got it right here.  Their pre-sales rally is showing it (since their announcement).  The buzz on the internet and in the forums show it.  Unless Microsoft has a change of tone, my bet is on PS4 in this round and that's a shame, because I liked the Xbox better in the past.

• Kinect always on, fail.
• Console has to be always connected to the Internet (or at least daily), fail.
• Most restrictive DRM a console has ever seen, fail.
• Price point, fail. (I was actually Ok with the price point, but now that Sony has come in $100 cheaper it clearly gives them the advantage).

I've read all the arguments.  If the Xbox fails, it will be because above the 4 above points and that Sony has chosen to fall out of rank and exploit them.  Had Sony done the same as MS, everyone would have be ticked but not had a choice if you wanted to game or have an entertainment console (I'm excluding the WiiU because it's kind of a failure all on it's own, coming from someone who has owned every console Nintendo has put out).  Instead, Sony exploited these weaknesses to their advantage (at least as of now).  That's the free market.  If all things stand like this, I predict Sony will win this round of the console wars. 

I suppose the ball is now in Microsoft's court.  I don't expect them to eat crow until they realize their losing money if and when that happens.  We'll see how it plays out.

5 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm going to wait and see what games are on the consoles before deciding which console to get.

I don't want a PS4 if the games suck, no matter how much I can share them.

This is one a good point.  One of the important variables that is still out.

I liked being able to connect to my old Android phone and just copy files to it through whatever mechanism I wanted (and/or then use any number of sync'ing applications).  I had beefs with the Android phone also, but coping files to / from it was not one of them.  I didn't have to be tethered to a specific computer either (moving my iPad to sync to a new desktop was a nightmare).

At this point, I would even accept "your phone is not supported for updates" although I don't think they should stop supporting a phone they have an active contract out on (it seems like they're trying to force people into upgrading early to get updates).  I pitty the poor souls that got this phone on this network at the end of it's life cycle who may end up stuck with a phone that never gets updated (I purchased the only Windows Phone 7 available on Verizon at the time I got it).  Frankly, all of this makes Microsoft look bad even if it's not Microsoft's fault (as a customer, I feel like I was left for dead half way through my contract). 

When you're desperately trying to win over market share and keep the meager share you have, this isn't helping.

19 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

You will be able to trade and re-sell games (but I expect only through the XBox system).

 

Sounds like an anti-competitive practice to me. 

Also, an Internet connection isn't required to play games, but it has to be connected to the Internet once a day to check in to work?  What if my internet is out longer than a day (which happens more than you'd think, *cough* Comcast)?  Hell, what if I go on vacation, take the Xbox with me and want to use it and I don't have internet there (frequently happens)?  Talk about an obnoxious step back. 

I'm going to wait to see how that feature really plays out.  I want an Xbox, but I don't want to support these business practices and that maybe where I just end up playing games on my last generation console or choose a different console all together.

Whereas I have not been a fan of "snap" on the desktop, I do see it as much more compelling feature here in an interface where there isn't a mouse and keyboard to really fine tune sizes and placement.  It's very Windows 8 so far with the apps.  IMO, the ESPN app on Windows 8 has been kind of jank (it crashes, it stops working, it's slow)... but the way they're intermixing TV with online content in this demo is pretty sweet if it really works like that in practice.  I'm excited about that feature (to see someone do it well).

15 minutes ago, PopeDai wrote

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

Xbox 1 it is.  It looked like the hardware just said "Xbox" on the outside.

2 hours ago, Hometoy wrote

@evildictaitor: Ok, my stupidity is starting to leak. Where can I learn the better way _now_, and try to plug my leaks?  Some starting point please.

In terms of SQL injection, you should at a minimum use a parameterized command if you're putting input into the SQL from a web-page/query string/form post, etc. (i.e. you put the variable into your sql statement and then use the parameters collection on the command to set the values for those variables).  This will help protect you in most cases if it's used correctly. Here's a basic example:

http://www.dotnetperls.com/sqlparameter

3 hours ago, spivonious wrote

@Cybermagellan: Yeah, Web Forms makes things a lot harder than they need to be. Try to approach things from a WinForms perspective and it might make more sense.

That's kind of broad.  It makes some things harder but a lot of things are pretty straightforward.

3 hours ago, Cybermagell​an wrote

(isPost), what is that?

I assume you mean IsPostBack?  IsPostBack will be False if it's your initial visit to the page (no post back has occurred) and it will be True if it is a PostBack (meaning that some event on the page triggered a server side postback).  E.g. You click a asp.net button and it fires the button's click event on the server. 

In WinForms, the form would fire the Load event when it was first loaded so you knew that was the initial entrance to the form (it shouldn't be called again unless a new instance is created or it's manually called).  In WebForms, Load is fired everytime a postback occurs so this variable allows you to determine if it's the initial entrance to the page.

5 hours ago, cheong wrote

@jinx101:We're talking about VS2013 here right?

I'd rather have it using normal casing on default and have to tweak registry to change to ALL UPCASE.

ALL UPCASE is plain ugly and don't get applause from user. This will harm first image. Get it?

I get it, I prefer the same thing.

54 minutes ago, Ian2 wrote

IMO the start menu should come back but the (legacy) start menu should be an option that can be turned off

I agree.  I think that would be a reasonable approach. 

In the bigger picture, I liken it to a metaphor for many of the other design choices I'm not a fan of (I won't go into detail, they've been exhausted elsewhere).

7 minutes ago, PopeDai wrote

We all used to love this man.

Marc Andreesen kind of looks like a conehead in the picture farther down on that page.