Can i ask a dumb question about WinRT?
If CLR and BCL are gone (from .Net to WinRT I believe ) and WinRT is just an API that you can use with C# or whatever language. What does that mean to the managed world?, the VM still exist?, what happened to the garbage collector? there is no more IL?
PS: the keynotes are blocked at work and there isn't much info about this.
I've only read into WinRT briefly but I think I know what is going on. The CLR and BCL have not been removed and are still the foundation for managed code applications. WinRT is simply a (relatively small) modern API framework to perform certain tasks in Windows. It subsequently duplicates some of the behaviour available in the BCL.
Metro XAML applications (managed code) are based upon .NET For Metro APIs and WinRT APIs. .NET For Metro is a subset of the full .NET Framework, in the same way Silverlight is a subset of the .NET Framework offerings. You are still referencing core .NET 4.5 assemblies. Referencing .NET assemblies outside of the .NET For Metro allocation will fail the Windows Store certification tests. For certain operations e.g. launching metro applications or initiating shutdown you will be required to make use of WinRT API set. You will apparently also be able to reference WinRT when in the traditional desktop running Full .NET Framework applications.
The XAML layout engine lives in the WinRT layer.
C9 is still an unresponsive pig of a site for me.
For the most part, I've given up coming here, because it's just not worth the agonisingly long delays (and non-responses) to every click... it's easily the worst site I use.
It's been absolutely dreadful the last day or so.
Rent two boxes from rackspace, throw on mysql and phpbb - it'll run like a champ.
Seriously though, why is this happening? You guys must have a vast budget yet your site runs poorer than many high profile sites which are likely ran for half the budget. No one is doubting the potential speed of asp.net, but something must be wrong if we have to endure these lousy response times.
W3bbo said:contextfree said:*snip*
Interesting, but is that a C++ interface to the (still managed) Silverlight runtime, or is the Silverlight implementation C++ as well?
To my knowledge, the core of Silverlight is native code - with managed bindings connecting to it. It could explain why Silverlight is faster than The Hog (i.e. WPF) as there is a large amount of managed code inside WPF which talks to native Milcore.
W3bbo said:yman said:*snip*
The public debt situation wasn't that bad prior to the mortage recession, and the encroachment of the 'database state' was caused the introduction of knee-jerk legislation in response to 'terror' attacks. It isn't like the Tories have a reputation for stoicism in the face of tabloid adversity either (quite the opposite: consider the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and let's not get started on Section 28).
Anyway, labour isn't socialist; they've been centrist ever since New Labour. For "Socialist" Labour you have to go back to the 1970s.
My prediction is the coalition will break down after the Tories won't concede to LibDem demands on things like electoral reform (AV is not substitute for PR) after a year or so. The "Deputy Prime Minister" post being considered for Nick Clegg is an empty gesture: the last DPM, John Prescott, was only in the news for all the wrong reasons.
There's no doubt the Tory party were reactionary in terms of domestic policy, but there has been a growing feeling over the past couple of years that our liberties have been undermined disproportionately to placate concerns of terrorism. One only needs to have a look at the attempt of the 42 Days Terrorism Bill - thank goodness the unelected old foggies in the Lords had our interests at heart! The Tories + Lib Dems should hopefully protect our rights in this area.
Goodness knows which direction the Labour Party will take now - if they are wise they'll continual on their centre-left path fixed by the New Labour Project and not default to radical left-wingism. I used socialism loosely, I was thinking of placing quotes around it, - it's true that New Labour weren't full-on nationalize-the-kitchen sort of socialist and instead embraced the free market (*cough*). But, it could be argued that their massive and unsustainable public spending, massive growth of the state by roughly 900,000 people (state is now a greater proportion than the private sector) among other things could suggest "socialist-tendencies".
Shining Arcanine said:W3bbo said:*snip*
They should have made a coalition with Labour so that Labour would have been the ones doing that, ensuring an overwhelming victory in 4 years time, with all of the unpopular work already already having been done.
I'm so glad to see the back of Labour. In my opinion, they did some good (increased hospitals spending, equality agenda, devolution amongst others) but their failings are truly awful: unbelievable public debt (caused by uncontrolled fiscal spending pre-bail out), the growth of an intrusive state such as the all-seeing databases, the rampant increase in regulation and general taxation, the dilution of exam standards etc.
I hope the new coalition with the Liberals works. It could potentially be a good move for Britain. We all know there's going to have to be massive public spending cuts which will be testing on the population. The combined argument and support of Tory and Lib Dems should make the cuts easier to "sell" to the population. This is vital if we want to ensure our credit rating and general economic confidence.
In the long term, I wonder if the coalition could potentially realign politics in this country? It was Thatcher's dream to have a non socialist party as the opposition - could there ever be a situation in 10 years time where the Lib Dems/Tories are the main two parties? One does hope.
rhm said:blowdart said:*snip*
Don't get me wrong - Labour suck too. PFI is one of the most ridiculous ideas in history, essentially a government accounting scam whereby debt goes onto corporations ballance sheets (at a huge cost to the state in the long run) instead of the state's in order to make the government look better by not increasing the budget deficit. The fact that the state can borrow at much cheaper rates than corporations is what makes it insane.
But is a Conservative government going to be better or worse? I think the freedom Cameron talks about is fake (who wants to run their own hospital? It's insane). The freedom that he's actually going to implement is for News Corporation to take over British media after he's removed Ofcom. And the freedom for banks to carry on doing whatever the hell they like with even less regulation.
There are no real personal freedoms on the agenda with the conservatives. Do I see a committment to repeal the Digial Economy act? Only the Lib Dems have promised to remove the disconnection rule from that. Would a Conservative government have allowed 'civil unions' or will one upgrade them to marriages to avoid that euphamism? Given that Cameron has given full support to a Christian nutjob MP who thinks she can "cure homosexuality" I doubt it. Would a Conservative government legalise pot? Those are personal freedoms that right-wing parties will never agree to and yet they like to talk about freedom.
I can't see anything good coming from a Conservative government. Even the spending cuts will come at the expense of higher unemployment.
I'll be voting Conservative.
We need a Government which can sort out the massive debt which Labour has landed this country in (again). With Labour's vested interests (unions etc) and the fact they helped cause the country's indebtedness, I really don't think they are in the best place to solve our issues. Similarly, while Nick Clegg seems like a nice guy and the Lib Dems may be substantially better than Labour, I disagree with them on a whole raft of policies: joining the Euro, cutting short prison sentences, amnesty for illegal immigrants etc.
I feel genuinely quite excited by Cameron's "direct democracy" and transparency agenda: vote for your police chief, see all government spending over £25,000, referendum on council tax rises, "community right to buy" closing pubs, ability to set up own schools. And, for the the record, despite what rhm claims, this doesn't mean setting up your own hospitals. I was fortunate to have a relatively good secondary education, but I want the same benefit for my children. It's clear that despite modest increases, rapid investment in secondary schools hasn't increased standards to the rate which we would all wish (lots of new computers but poor discipline etc). I fully support the idea of busting open the state education market, allowing businesses, charities and other groups to create new state-funded schools in the market driving up standards.
Re Murdoch, I don't like the influence Murdoch has on our media either, but come on, The Sun supported Labour at the last elections. Murdoch just supports the people who are in, or about to get into power as it gives him leverage to call for deregulation.
I don't frankly give a damn about Cameron's background or wealth. He comes over, to me at least, a lot more sincere than Brown or Nick Clegg (claims he's from Sheffield yet his parents own a mansion). We need to get away from this divisive and futile "I-voted-Labour-because-my-dad-did" or "I-voted-Tory-because-I-am-rich" mantra, vote for policies, not something which the leaders have no control over (their class).
W3bbo said:PaoloM said:*snip*
To be fair: OS4's Task Manager is for switching between open programs, not for terminating them, unlike the one built-in to Windows Mobile.
If i am reading the gadget sites correctly, the OS4 task manager does give you a way to "terminate" opened applications. In this scenario, closing an opened application will clear the "pause state" of the application - freeing memory.