mrshrinkray

I get the feeling a lot of this went Woosh over the interviewers head (or boredom)!

When talking about divergence, how is this accounted for when the formula is used for tyre manufacturers for cars going low speeds?

Kettal wrote:



mdragone wrote: The OWA Light team recently wrote about this over at the EHLO blog. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/09/13/428901.aspx Their reasoning for not supporting Firefox in OWA Premium is at the bottom of the article.

And the answer in that article is a sugar-coated way of saying "we're not that concerned about interoperability. Other messaging servers, developed on a much smaller budget, made rich AJAX clients that work with Firefox perfectly, and they didn't break the bank. Scalix is one example.

You need to take off the tin foil hat. The reason it's not supported in previous versions is undoubetedly because Firefox was still in beta whilst they were producing it for Exchange 2003. They obviously targetted IE not bothering with the useless Mozilla which was a wise choice.

As for 2007:

Operating Systems: Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Window ME, Windows 98, Mac OS X, and Linux

Browsers: Firefox, Safari, Opera, Netscape, IE7, IE6, IE5.5, IE5.01 and IE5.2 on Mac

And Firefox does not render OWA (2003) properly if you switch your User Agent, so the problem is obviously more profound than the Exchange team adding Firefox to their User Agent lookup list, the display code is using some IE specific javascript.

Speaking of Firefox, this textbox doesn't work in Firefox, and also the MSDN subscribers site doesn't work either. No excuses there!

Looks very similar to Quicktime VR, ULead 360 but a bit more complex. The amount of images needed will surely swamp the hard disk though?

English has been vandalised by a whole sespit of American Marketing/Sales terms, particularly in software. The richness comes from the fact it's 40% French, parts Latin, parts Germanic and so on. However when you see words like performant, and words suffixed with "ize" you can only imagine that the people who made up those words aren't exactly Wordsworth. Energize me!

Anyway that's off topic. Have Microsoft hired a few 'hackers' to have a good old punch at the heap?

I'm interested about the performance of ADO.NET entities. Will it be clever enough to optimise its SQL (table joins, indexes etc.), not bring back every row (but not ask for each row at a time) and so forth?

For the most simple 3 tier applications, with very basic < 10 table databases these type of middleware/business layers work very well. For complex databases they are generally slow and bulky and not worth using in my experience.