Discussions

For Charlie Kindel:

Question: Will the OS and apps for Windows 7 Series be accessible to people with disabilities via for example a built-in screen reader for the blind, like the one on the iPhone, or will native and built-in accessibility come later in a future version?

Comments: Personally I would think that accessibility through a built-in screen reader or magnifier should be a priority, since Microsoft is the worst of all the vendors on accessibility at the moment:

Google has an open source screen reader/magnifier plus speech recognition for more than one language, Nokia has built-in text-to-speech, Apple has a built-in screen reader and magnifier plus text-to-speech for numerous languages plus speech recognition,

whilst Microsoft has no screen reader/magnifier, no text-to-speech, no multi-language support for text-to-speech and no dictation, and buying such accessibility tools for Windows Phones is currently extremely expensive $400 plus.

Second question:

If the words "7 Series" are now used to denote Windows Phone 7 Series Phones, then how are you going to manage to find names for the future versions (8, 9, etc) of this same platform if they are all part of the "7 Series"? "Windows Phone 8 Series" would then tend to  denote a completely new platform and so numbers above 7 will not be usable.

I can report that the focus bug happens with me as well. It is very annoying since I might be typing something in another application and IE steals the focus away. It doesn't exactly steal the focus in my case but it removes rather the focus from the application that has the focus but does not place it in IE itself. I don't know if this is a JavaScript or IE bug, I don't know if this is a Windows bug but it doesn't happen with any other application such as Windows Live Messenger. I have not changed my registry settings myself.
The question, however, remains: Even if it is Windows fault or perhaps my own settings for focus handling, why does IE in any case need to call the SetForegroundWindow function? Does it call the function after it loads a page? And if so, why? It didn't happen with IE6. Was the behaviour changed in IE7 to set the focus after it loads a page, even if this is done through the "polite" Windows SetForegroundWindow function? If yes, please remove this behaviour as it has annoyed me many times.
Please also look for and fix another potential bug in IE and in Windows Media Player where the alt key does not only close a pop-up context menu, as in all other Windows applications, but it also brings up the application main menu at the same time.

Why don't you all use Application Sharing?
1. Make sure that you and your partner have Windows Live Messenger beta or MSN Messenger installed.
2. Ad him/her to your contacts list.
3. Open an instant message window and from the Actions menu choose Activities. From the list of activities that appears choose Application Sharing.
Using application sharing you and your partner can do as it says: share any application. You can give hom/her control so that he/she will be able to use it remotely if desired as well.
If Application Sharing fails use Remote Assistance under the Actions menu as well. Remote Assistance allows the other person to see and if allowed interact not only with one application but with the whole desktop.
I used to do a lot of Application Sharing in the past and even used to share my browser (IE) with my friedns and browse together.

I believe that we should start seriously thinking how we can standardize new, enhansed and built from the ground up technologies like language extentions for producing web applications. The current set of technologies is beginning to show its age. HTML is built for presenting data only, XML lacks common schema definitions, ECMAScript is not as powerful as we would have desired. Their blending which is AJAX is convoluted and hard to program in. A new technology, perhaps based on XUL as already mentioned or on XAML should be built and standardized. And standardized it should be now that is early and that the web is not full of web applications. Now it should be agreed upon and standardized in order to allow the web to move to the next level of rich web applications that have the usability of desktop interfaces. This is not because desktop computing should be replaced by apps running in the browser but because let's face it, the web will be used in any case. The web will be used and is being used whatever users will say. As time goes on we see major vendors, like Oracle forms, moving their apps into the browser and away from the desktop to the users' annoyance. "So what" vendors say, if the majority of users are not power-users anyway and if they do not mind the accessibility and reduced productivity issues then so what. Now is the time to move forward, not with a Microsoft only solution like XAML and .NET-based forms, but with a universal solution. If better web experiences are not provided and as things stand they will not, then unfortunately programmer will use the existing imfrastructure regardless how users feel. How many companies have internal websites for tracking tasks, orders, forum discussion, etc? How many use desktop software to do the same? Certainly small companies have web sites and their users have to deal with the hasle. Certainly many more users enjoy their web e-mail and do not use the desktop experiences. If isn't break why fix it, they say.
And truely, the web offers some advantages like the ability to use it everywhere and on every device. It reminds me of the slogan used for .NET. Desktop applications should be made as easy to code as HTML. How many computer science students know and write web pages? How many use web technologies like HTML, ECMAScript, PHP, ASP, etc? On the other hand, how many know and write WIN32 apps? The difference is overwelming. And not only students but also professors. People want a lightweight way of writing simple apps that are portable from computer to computer and truely "click once". Let's hope that the promised .NET and XAML will enable this options and the Win32 programming will be embrased and learned by as many as the web technologies.
On the other hand, the web is only easily programmed for simple apps. Try to do anything harder and things begin to be really hard. The next version of Windows Live Mail takes ages to produce by a group of talented programmers, etc, etc. Why should n't we have true desktop-like functionality in our web apps? Why couldn't we have menus, forms, keyboard navigation like in Windows and better user controls that closely resemble desktop ones? Even with ASP.NET where the programming style is much cleaner and more closely resembles the programming of a desktop app, even their code is translated into old HTML. So, what is ASP.NET, a translation engine built to make programming the web as it should have been? Trying to enhanse an already inadequate platform?
A new web platform is required and Microsoft is the company that can take the initiative. Not by adding its own proprietory features without common industry agreement. Not by producing a totally revolutionary and thus incompatible platform. Revolutionary it should be. But on the contrary, more colaboration between browser vendors is required. How many new web technologies that run inside the browser have we seen from Microsoft in recent years? We have the birth of DHTML in the 90s. But recently? Nothing? Microsoft and IE team should learn how to build bridges with competitors. Microsoft in general should make like security, interoperability a top priority? We as users need choice and interoperatibility is a prerequicit of that.
Bottom line: why should the two technologies, web and desktop computing, HTML and XAML, ECMAScript and C++/C# be so much different in their programming style. Admitedly they could and should be different in functionality or else the browser would be our operating system. However, why should they differ so much in how you program them. I think Microsoft should and could move them closer and do it in a standards'based way.

I made a mistaking when posting the code. I forgot the < and > symbols.
The following does not compile under VS2003.

class Outter
{
public:
// First inner class:
template<class T> class Inner1
{
};

// Second Inner class:
class Inner2
{
public:
// Method definition:
Outter* Inner1()
{
}
};
};

Why doesn't the following compile in Visual Studio 2003?
GCC compiles it without any errors.

class Outter
{
public:
// First inner class:
template class Inner1
{
};

// Second Inner class:
class Inner2
{
public:
// Method definition:
Outter* Inner1()
{
}
};
};

The error given is:
Debugger.cpp(16): error C2955: 'Outter::Inner1' : use of class template requires template argument list
And is on this line:
// Method definition:
 Outter* Inner1()
So it seems that the compiler confuses the method definition with the previous class deffinition having the same name (Inner1). But why should it?
I also asked this on the VC forums forums.microsoft.com but I got no satisfactory answer till now.
Note: The online forum software is horrible.
Note2: Where are the old good newsgroups for Visual C++. I can find MS newsgroups for almost anything but not for Visual Studio and the languages. Amaizing!

I worst products are the online services like .NET Passport, .NET Alerts and MSN.com. The MSN sites are inconsistent, full of clutter and thus too difficult to use. They do not even offer what users really need and until recently were seldom update. MSN Groups anyone? MSN Groups are still the way they were back in 2000 and earlier. .NET Alerts although a good idea was not executed correctly. It was not build having interoperability in mind and standards and as a result RSS took of and .NET Alerts are forgotten. What about Passport? Who though of these services and who executed them? If it was not for Google they would have been even worse and without any updates.
A second worst product should be Windows Media Player. Too cluttered and it does not support all media formats. It has an inaccessible interface, is too heavy and does not offer any compelling feature.
A third worst product is Outlook Express. Seldom updated, has no spam filtering and is overtaken by open source software, which for a company like Microsoft should have been a shame.

The video content is good however Channel9 should fulfill more of its role as a comminication medium between the inside of Microsoft and the outside. It should not only be a window offering a glips into the MS world but also a discussions forum where users would not only be able to get answers on MS policy issues from the inside but would also be able to shape Microsoft future directions.
To that end, I don't want videos which are only informative. I want videos which are controversial. Which will talk about and ask direct questions on user concerns: Why is Vista so delayed. Why has MSN Search been so unsuccessful still? What about Windows Media and interoperability with other oses? Etc. There are many burning questions that remain unanswered. In your videos we do not want to know the basics like "What is a driver". We already know that. If Channel9 will be a place where users get answers then it should move beyond the .NET Show informative type videos.
In addition, videos are only one-way. We need a way to interact with Microsoft Emploies live, ask questions on controversial topics and have a say in future MS policies or how MS policies will be shaped. I know that Chats are already taking place in Microsoft. But these are more like a product show chats. We need chats that take place before a product is designed and not after the fact to file bugs. We need chats that will allow customers to put their worries forward and get informative answers and not simply "we are looking into it". Eg. the recent security issue: we did not have any inside stories or details like on day one we did that, on day two that, etc. Details like Mark's blog on the recent WMF flaw and the explanations he gave. Compare those against the official tone of the Security Response Center and you will understand.
Speaking of bugs, there is still no way to file bugs or suggestions. Channel9 forums have become boring and one-sided in my opinion. We need true discussions with MS Employees and recognition of the weaknesses of the company, in order to design with its customers the future. Only through open dialog this can happen and not avoiding the burning issues, such as Google, DRM, etc. How many MS Employees participate on your forums. One, two, three?
We need a better MS community efford. All systems: bug tracking, community chats, videos and user initiate discussions, as well as Gotdonet wshould be merged into a signle community site with many roles. A first step can be to make videos in which users ask the questions and not you. You could start a thread in which users can post questions to be asked to a specific team of their choice and then take the most popular team choices and do interviews with them. I am sure you can improve and make Channel9 and truely two-sided discussions place.
You forums have eroded. Who uses the Wiki? Do something!

Why doesn't Microsoft provide a compiler that will turn IL into machine code? After all, Ngen is provided already and so why doesn't it have the ability to be used at the developers machine instead of at every users machine. Since all users running MS software use the same X86 family of processors then why is the Ngen compilation to machine code performed only at time of install? Why cannot it be done at time of development, like with all other apps?
If security is the issue then Ngen at the user's machine has the same limitations, ie. it produces a native executable and not an assembly which can be varified at runtime. But code signing has aleviated the security issues. Why can't a developer sign his assembly and compile it native code before distributing it.
There is should be a simple reason.  

According to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/software/Macintosh/osx/default.aspx, Microsoft will hault development of WMP for Mac and will stop providing support for it. Some users are voicing opinions at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/community/newsgroups/WindowsMedia/default.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player.mac the MS newsgroups.
At the same time, Microsoft has made an agreement with a 3rd party to provide a plugin for Apple Quicktime that will enable Mac users to play WMA and WMV files in Quicktime on their Mac. In the newsgroups, users report that the provided plugin is buggy and on the web many Mac users are disappointed with Microsoft's decision to stop developments of WMP for Mac, especially as it comes just two days after MS had promised continued Mac support and a new Office for Mac agreement. Why was this decision made at this time and so quietly?
The biggest problem of course is that the new Quicktime plugin, unlike WMP for Mac, cannot play back files protected with Windows Media DRM.
I have two questions for MS emploies in the Windows Media Group (they still have no blog!) which is time, after all these years, to start addressing:
1. Since Windows Media Video will become a standard (I am not sure about audio) why don't you make it easier for developers to create solutions that run on other platforms eg. Linux? The licensing site says nothing about other platforms and talks only about portable devices. The Windows Media site is in a mess anyway. It is more like an advertisement of WMA/WMV and does not help developers find info easily. Google would have had and much simpler site which would certainly help its image of "openness". Will WM Audio be standardized as well?
2. Why don't you make DRM available on other platforms? If you want Windows Media to be popular then it should be democratic enough to run wherever the user is and not only on Windows. After all, Yahoo!, Real, Adobe and other companies make software for Windows, the Mac and Linux and thus become so popular and widely trusted and accepted, eg. PDF and Real Player and server.
Finally a bonus question: Aren't you afraid of Google?
Google has announced that they will make their own DRM format and based on previous Google moves (Google Talk service, Search APIS, etc) we may suppose that their scheme will be open (perhaps even open source) and available on all platforms, not only on Windows. Otherwise, why did they choose to develop their own DRM instead of using the MS solution?
If Microsoft wishes Windows Media to be successful then why isn't it available on all platforms? Shouldn't it be available freely for it to be trusted and widely popular? After all, if Windows Media Formats on the one hand and Windows Media DRM on the other are closed then there will always be mistrust of Microsoft by Unix/Linux/Mac users. After all, how can a big music shop or media company use Windows Media DRM if such a system shuts out users of other operating systems except Windows? Isn't it more likely that online music shops will choose an more open format that will support all platforms, 100% of the population instead of 90%? Google?
I am sure that if there was a standardized, less costly or more platform independent DRM scheme then Windows Media DRM would have had no chance. What is your opinion? Are we ever going to get an answer from the Windows Media Group on the issues surrounding Windows Media licensing on other platforms and what is their standardization story behind DRM?