Entries for nektar

Why doesn't the following compile under VS2003? [Why doesn't the following compile under VS2003?]

nektar — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:58:15 GMT

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!

in reply to Why doesn't the following compile under VS2003?

Microsoft Kills WMP for Mac. [Microsoft Kills WMP for Mac.]

nektar — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:49:06 GMT

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?

in reply to Microsoft Kills WMP for Mac.

The Add +1 Rule. [The Add +1 Rule.]

nektar — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:09:13 GMT

The Add +1 Rule is a new mathematical theorem which is to be aplied to all Microsoft promises concerning their shipping schedules. The Add +1 Rule states that if Microsoft announces an aproximation for a product release date, you should add 1 to the smallest quantity found in the announcement in order to find the correct release date. More specifically:
If Microsoft announces that a product is expected to be released within a specific year then add one to that year. If Microsoft says that a product is expected to be available in a particular month then add one to that month. If Microsoft states that a product will be ready by the middle of something, eg. the middle of a year, then add one to that to make it "by the end of the year", or, if eg. late 2004 is given as the expected date, the beginning of the next year will be, well, a better aproximation. Finally, if Microsoft says that a product will be released during a specific season then move a season forward, ie. summer should be changed to autumn, etc.
And now some examples of the Add +1 Rule in action:
In the past MS used to say: "Windows Longhorn will be released in mid-end of 2005". Well, mid-end of 2006 is a better aproximation.
Internet Explorer 7 Beta is to be available in June. Well, July is a better aproximation.
Visual Studio would be release by the middle of 2005. Well, by the end of 2005 is a better aproximation.
MSN Messenger 7 was to be released in March. Well, April is a better aproximation.
MBSA and MS Update were slated for the first quarter of 2005. Well, the middle of the year is a better aproximation.
XP SP2 was to be released at the end of June 2004. Well, early August was a better aproximation.
If a Microsoft representative says that "It will be available by the end of the year" do not believe him, he probably means "By next year".
Whom do they think they are talking to? Don't they realize that you should not make promises that you are unable to fulfill?

in reply to The Add +1 Rule.

Yahoo! now will offer 1 gb inboxes. [Yahoo! now will offer 1 gb inboxes.]

nektar — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:20:12 GMT

Yahoo will soon offer 1 gb inboxes as well. I guess Hotmail will again be the last one.

in reply to Yahoo! now will offer 1 gb inboxes.

MSN Messenger v7 suggestion [MSN Messenger v7 suggestion]

nektar — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:46:39 GMT

Internationalization:
Currently in MSN Messenger all versions, even in version 7 beta when you are located in a country or region in which there is no localised version of an MSN Messenger tab, such as shopping, cars, etc, the tab is not shown at all. Even MSN Alerts are not available simply because MSN Messenger does not have a localized tab for them in my country. However, as we all know Alerts are 100'% operational even from countries in which there is no localisation interface for them. So, why disable them. Not only Alerts but it seems that everything gets disabled, including news, shopping, even the new MSN Search. Games and activities are also different and less in number in my country. Why? I could have used the English version of them perfectly if I was given the chance. I do not mind not having a localised version. At least let me choose if I would like to have my localised version or if I would prefer the English one.
My suggestion is if there is a feature which is not localised to show the English version by default. In this way we will get the full benefits of MSN Messenger 7, the full feature set, without having to wait for every feature to be localised, especially since this wait might be looong indeed. Some people like myself, download the English version of Messenger anyway. Why shouldn't we get most tabs or features because of our country or region? If we have downloaded the English version Of MSN Messenger in the first place, it means that we do not mind viewing some English content if the content is not available for our country.
So, make all features and tabs work in every country, even though most of them might not be localised yet.
Servey:
It is also funny that on the MSN Messenger 7 beta servey there is the following question:
What service are you using:
1. MSN Messenger only,
2. MSN Hotmail only,
3. I am a paying subscriber and
4. Not sure.
What if I am both an MSN Messenger and a Hotamil user? Who writes these serveys anyway? Why haven't they notice such an apparent error themselves?
In any case the support is horrible or in the case of Hotmail, none existent. Too bad!

in reply to MSN Messenger v7 suggestion

Fix the spelling error on the search page [Fix the spelling error on the search page]

nektar — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:03:06 GMT

A long time ago I have posted on the Channel9 bug wiki that there is a spelling mistake on the search page. Instead of saying separated by commas, it says seperated. Please fix it.

in reply to Fix the spelling error on the search page

Why does XP allow empty admin accounts? [Why does XP allow empty admin accounts?]

nektar — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:21:17 GMT

In Windows XP, like in previous versions of NT, there is a default account called Administrator. Naturally though, when you install XP it can create for you your own account in the administrators group and call it whatever you wish. Once your account is in place after installation the default administrator account does not even appear on the welcome screen.
However, the default administrator account is still active and has an empty password! And although having an empty password coupled with a new policy setting in XP does not allow anyone to log on using the default admin account from the network, anyone can still log on from the console. So, even though you have secures your new home computer with a password and you have even created a password reset disk, your security is only imaginary.
This is because anyone can walk up to your computer, ignore the welcome screen and press ctrl+alt+delete twice for the old log on screen. Then, he/she can simply type in the username administrator and very well! he has bypassed your password protected computer. Is this axceptable os behaviour? Do you think so? Does Microsoft think so? And what is even more alarming is that XP does not make this fact known to the user. An ordinary user when looking in the User Accounts dialog in Control Panel will not find any mention to a default administrator account or that it has an empty password. So, the everyday user will be happy believing and strusting in Windows security.

in reply to Why does XP allow empty admin accounts?

First IE critical security flaw discovered after XP SP2 [First IE critical security flaw discovered after XP SP2]

nektar — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:51:10 GMT

A security firm has reported over the weekend a newly discovered highly critical flaw that affect most versions of Internet Explorer, even Windows XP with Service Pack 2. Microsoft says that the issue is not easy to exploit but according to some security analysts this is not true as an attacker can easily make a page where just by using the scrollbar could potentially place an executable in your startup folder.
Look at:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=29116685
and
http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/43739/windowspaulthurrott_43739.html
Can we have an official response from Microsoft. Perhaps here in Channel9. Where is Stepto?

in reply to First IE critical security flaw discovered after XP SP2

What happened to the videos on Spot [What happened to the videos on Spot]

nektar — Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:38:11 GMT

What happened to the videos about the Spot technology. And their associatereplies. The videos are not on the home page, not in the Videos forum, not found by using Channel9 Search, not even in RSS. What is going on. And really, Channel9 streaming videos is very slow, at least for me.

in reply to What happened to the videos on Spot

How are your videos prepared and edited? [How are your videos prepared and edited?]

nektar — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:36:43 GMT

I wonder how Channel9 records and prepares its videos. For example, what kind of software is used to analyse and fix errors in the videos. What cameras are used, how are the videos uploaded and streamed. How are changes made to the Channel9 pages to inform users and how are links added. Is the whole process automatic? And why is it so difficult to make the same videos downloadable?
The choice of formats is also interesting. Why was WMV chosen and were other formats at firstevaluated? This is interesting since many of the advance video and audio editing programs do not still support WMV/WMA as their native format. For example, Wavelab and Cooledit Pro two famous audio editing programs still rely on wav and not really on WMA or at least WMA Lossless since compressed formats might be unsuitable for these kind of software.

in reply to How are your videos prepared and edited?

A suggestion for improving Channel9 [A suggestion for improving Channel9]

nektar — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:17:46 GMT

The way that Channel9 is structured today is like an one-way communication. The Channel9 team chooses topics and unfortunately they are usually topics that advertise more about future technologies than ask for suggestions for software that is on the market today. True, users can sometimes interact with the person who gave the video interview, but even then it is the Channel9 Team that mostly answers questions on the forums and not so much the other Microsoft Employees and especially the product managers that are directly responsible.
Therefore, I want to suggest a more direct way by which we can communicate with Microsoft staff. The Channel9 team should set up a forum or a wikie where every month let's say, all users would be able to post their questions and their complaints with a specific Microsoft product/technology. Then, the Channel9 team should filter and choose the best questions and organize an interview with the product manager of the technology concerned or a knowledgable representative. The manager or the representative would then answer the questions that we users had posted. In this way our voice would be heard louder in practice and not just in theory.

in reply to A suggestion for improving Channel9

Which software tools are used to build the Microsoft websites? [Which software tools are used to build the Microsoft websites?]

nektar — Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:18:11 GMT

Given the recent discussions on web standard conformance and given that building rich sites which are also compatible in every browser is very difficult, I wonder which software tools do Microsoft employees use to build their sites. What tools where used to build Microsoft.com for example? Or MSDN or even this site, Channel9? Is it Frontpage or what?

in reply to Which software tools are used to build the Microsoft websites?

What is your favorite search engine: And why? [What is your favorite search engine: And why?]

nektar — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:38:15 GMT

I am hoping to start a discussion on what people like and dislike with the various search engines out there. Personally my own preferred search engine is Google. Ok I know that this is not very original but the reason that I like Google is not because as many people say, it finds more accurate results than other engines. The feature that Google has and I like is its luck of features. I mean Yahoo and even MSN might find quite sufficient results for me perhaps, but unfortunately there interface is overloaded. MSN gives you a full page asking you to Find a house, Shop for Flowers, Read news, etc, etc, plus a whole list of choices the use of which might not be apparent until you click them. Whilst Google on the other hand offers a simple interface. A page which, surprise surprise!, can load much faster. Google's page gives you only the basic choices: Web, News, Froogle, Groups, Directory. No unnecessary and confusing toolbars (Money, People Chat, Shop, Hotmail, My MSN, etc) and whole lists of unnecessary links. I know that you can customize your choices with My MSN and the same on Yahoo! with My Yahoo, but users who need to perform just the most popular thing on the Internet which is just to search will soon find that Google's simpler approach is far better as it is faster and easy to learn by everyone. With these I do not mean to say that less used features like Finding a job, a House, Yellow Pages, etc, should not be developed. On the contrary, these features are useful, especially the many facilities currently offered by Yahoo! such as its excellent Briefcase, free calendar and Note-taking feature, its chat, etc. I would be very happy if MSN for example were to develop the richness of Yahoo!'s free facilities, like a free calendar. However, what is important is for these extra features to be organized better. For example, like Google, a search portal could first show a simple page with a simple search box and include a link More>> which would reveal its other offerings. Or just organize the various services under different and easy to understand links, rather than placing everything on the home page. Another problem is that features that do not work outside specific countries eg. the USA should not be offered.
Finally, the search engine that I dislike a lot is Microsoft Search. Not only it rarely finds what you ask for, its real problem for me is the categories. Categorising results into eg. downloads, technical info, etc is surely useful. But why do I have to wait 5-10 secs for the Microsoft Search results to load, skip the unnecessary toolbar at the top (All Products, Guide, Home, etc), plus skip another search box and then click the category I wish? Microsoft Search should programmatically choose which categories it should display based on my query, or at least offer a combo box on every page next to the search query box for choosing the category. It should I believe display results grouped into categories on the results page, but intelligently place at the top the category whose results are the most relevant to my query, eg. searching for "Directx Downloads" should show the download category at the very top, followed by let's say Product information results category. On the other hand searching for Directx API should show the technical Info category at the top followed let's say by results in the developer chats category about the Directx technology. The number of results shown in every category group should also increase or decrease based on my query. Is this difficult to implement? I wonder...
What do you think about the search business? What are your own experiences?
By the way, when will MSN launch?

in reply to What is your favorite search engine: And why?

How should Media Player be improved? [How should Media Player be improved?]

nektar — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:31:07 GMT

From what I can gather Windows Media Player WMP will get a major update to version 10 in a few months. Therefore, now that the development team are preparing for the new release, I think we as users of the product should start making our suggestions.
For me I believe that WMP needs improvements in two areas: Usability and support of more formats.
Usability: I believe that WMP 9 is difficult to use for the average user. Loaded with a great number of icons, little buttons and controls, WMP's interface is not simple to navigate, learn and take advantage of. WMP uses non-standard menus and dialogs and it draws in its own way its controls. I think the interface should be made simpler by grouping commands in standard menus and dialogs, and by streamlining the way that users access the various functions of the player. This might be done by including more wizards or simply by starting WMP in a simpler mode with the minimal buttons (play, pause, stop, etc) on the screen and by including a button let's say called Show in Full Mode, for displaying the more advanced interface.
WMP also needs to improve its accessibility for people with disabilities by providing keyboard shortcuts (that work!) to many of its functions. Currently, the Rewind shortcut CTRL+SHIFT+B never ever works and the Jump Forward command CTRL+SHIFT+F works only for file played from the local computer but not for music played on cds or on the Internet. In addition the CTRL+SHIFT+F shortcut changes the speed of the song instead of jumping forward in it as it should. However, I believe that adding straight forward shortcuts to the player will assist everyone of us, since we would be able to quickly access its functionality without spending time with the mouse. Take example from the old Winamp v2's shortcuts:
z for previous song, x for play, c for pause, v for stop, ctrl+v for stop after current song (something that WMP does not support!), shift+v for fading out (something that is not easy to do in WMP!), b for next song, j for jumping to a song by typing the beginning of its name (very handy!), cursor right for forward, left for rewind, up for volume up and down for volume down.
Support for more formats: Since WMP is provided with every copy of Windows it should by default support most popular formats for streaming, playback and ripping cds and not simply what Microsoft offers. Also developpers would be greatly assisted in their own programs if the standard Windows codex could support most of the major formats for playback. Currently, WMP only supports ripping to WMA. I think it should support wav, mp3, aac and if possible Real Audio. Ripping cds to wav is very useful to my mind and should be added. Since most sound editing programs accept the wav format whilst support for wma is not so high still and if not using lossless WMA the sound quality also degrates, wav should be supported by all means. In addition WMP should playback aac format, Quicktime video, mp4 video and if possible streaming Real Audio/Video in addition to the current support. And if all these formats should appear to some to be very costly for Microsoft, it should be pointed out that Real Player v10 currently supports all of them and even more with extra plugins and it is still free. So, the only reason for Microsoft to continue only supporting WMA for ripping and for streaming over the Internet and not supporting aac, Real Audio/Video streaming, ripping to wav, etc, appears to be to push its own WMA/WMV format. Without saying that WMA is not a good format, since WMP ships with every copy of Windows it should at least support a bit more.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? What other suggestions should be added for the next Player, especially for developers?

in reply to How should Media Player be improved?