Interesting ideas... 
This stuff would be quite easy to mock-up using a bit of OpenGL (and probably DirectX, too).
Discussions
thumbtacks2
-
-
Curious...how much work would it take to develop your own lightweight window manager? For say...oh, I dunno...Linux. Seeing that several window managers could potentially be sucked into patent trouble, I'm wondering if it is worth it to revisit some old UI ideas.
For fun, ya know.
-
Good question. I did a bit of searching and found this:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa363480.aspx
Apparently there is a WM_DEVICECHANGE message, which would be handled via a wndproc function (in C/C++). I haven't actually tried this, however...but it looks interesting. -
In C#, it's my understanding that variables are created as objects. Does anybody know how large those objects are? In C, you have the sizeof operator, and it returns the size of an object in bytes. But in C#, from what I read here, it's sizeof operator "can only be used in the unsafe mode". Hmmm. Is there an alternate keyword that serves the same purpose?
Also, how does C# perform when you are manipulating large sets of data? Or is that not recommended. Just an academic interest on my end...nothing serious planned. -
Does anybody know how many users actually use anything that the Mono project has created?ScanIAm wrote:
Exactly, and in fact, I'd bet that Miguel has seen the code through reflector before. Remember, MSFT doesn't 'sell' .Net, so there's no market to protect.
wkempf wrote:
For Mono, it's definitely not silly. They have a huge risk of violating patents that Microsoft very well could defend.
For everyone else, give me a break. You know, MFC, ATL and several other libraries were under very similar licenses, and there's not been one instance of trouble caused by this. Let's stop spreading FUD. -
It would be a silly if Mono doesn't hire you because of "seeing the source code". That's their own choice, though, and I can see the legal issues they are trying to avoid.AndyC wrote:
If you want to work on mono, it might be an issue. For anyone else it's really not a big deal, especially if you're working as a .NET developer (why would you copy code from the BCL when you can just use the BCL?)thumbtacks2 wrote:
In all seriousness, who really cares if anybody has seen the .NET code or not? -
In all seriousness, who really cares if anybody has seen the .NET code or not? How else do developers learn? Now if you go and copy the code line by line and incorporate it into your own product, and then ship that, then you do so at your own risk.
-
And what difficult problems would those be?Charles wrote:You will also meet some incredibly interesting geniuses soon (some of whom do not work for MS or even contribute directly (or at all) to our stack, but who are working on the same hard industry-wide problems....) -
With site design (and even small database design) there are often several issues involved...(warning: preaching ahead)
1) How the information behind the scenes is organized
2) What the UI looks like
3) How easy it is to navigate
4) How it handles changing future business needs
Often, you'll have to make many compromises on these and other issues.
For #1, this is a huge consideration for developers and the people who have to maintain the site. The end user may or may not care about this part...although I would argue that a well designed and well organized back-end make things go a lot smoother on the front end.
For #2, this can be a selling point for an end user, but if you behind the scenes organization is bad, or the tab order (for instance) is all whacked (#3), nobody will care.
For #3, poor navigation can kill a site fast.
For #4, this can be a pain for both the end user and the developer, but often many of these issues don't crop up until a system is already in place and in use. Here's where previous experience can really pay off.
That said, I think the look of your idea is great. I noticed several differences in the organization of the information between all three versions, however...so I'm not sure what I can comment on there. I don't know who your end users are.
btw, thanks, now I'm thinking of picking up a bacon double cheeseburger from Burger King for lunch. -
I think you really hit on something there. Part of it may be that Apple can get away with this practice due to the relatively closed nature of their platform. Also, Microsoft is still trying out this whole "transparency" thing...with mixed results...and they have to try to make their software work a gazillion different hardware configurations. Sometimes an open hardware platform isn't always the best way to go.Harlequin wrote:Maybe Microsoft needs to get things close to done before announcing it, then it doesn't look like they take years and years for things to come to fruition, which they do. But with Apple they have a press conference, BAM new iPods. When are they out? The next weekend. That's how you sell half a million phones in a month.
Microsoft announces something. When is it coming out? Well, we're only in beta 1 but we'll have a tech preview in 6 months, yada yada yada.
