http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/Dev/App_Themes/C9/images/feedimage.pnghttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/When will Microsoft ship a WPF product?http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/en-usThu, 19 Jun 2008 07:05:32 GMTThu, 19 Jun 2008 07:05:32 GMTEvNet (EvNet, Version=1.0.3608.3122, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null)I found my answer to my first question. Out-of-process magnification is no longer supported in WPF. That's kind of sad. <blockquote> <div><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter/archive/2008/05/12/gpu-accelerated-custom-effects-for-wpf.aspx#8501940">GregSchechter wrote:</a></div> <div> Both 'bp' and 'Joseph Cooney' have noticed that magnification of WPF content using the built in OS Magnifier no longer does resolution independent zoom of content.<br /> <br /> That observation is correct.  <br /> <br /> As a result of a series of changes that are too numerous to describe here, the OS magnifier is no longer "WPF-aware", and does bitmap scaling just like it does of other content. Although we do lose this feature, we believe that without the dependencies that enabled Magnifier to work in a WPF-specific way, we can be more agile in what we provide to WPF customers moving forward.<br /> <br /> Note that the above is *only* about out-of-process magnification. When you do zooming (via scaling) within your own WPF application, the rendering continues to be re-rasterized at the higher scale, so everything remains smooth in that most common scenario. This change is strictly about using the external magnifier.<br /> <br /> </div> </blockquote>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=410327Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:02:05 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4103270http://channel9.msdn.com/410327/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0I found my answer to my first question. Out-of-process magnification is no longer supported in WPF. That's kind of sad. GregSchechter wrote: Both 'bp' and 'Joseph Cooney' have noticed that magnification of WPF content using the built in OS Magnifier no longer does resolution independent zoom&#8230;brian.shapiro0http://channel9.msdn.com/410327/Trackback.aspxI just did a few things with my system---I formatted and did a clean install so I could use Vista 64 instead of 32--since drivers are now available---and downloaded Visual Studio with .NET 3.5 SP1. Now whenever I run an application that was written with WPF, Magnifier doesn't show a magnified view with increased detail; instead its just a bitmap magnification. Does anybody know whats going on?<br><br>Second, I'm also wondering how to do the equivalent of something like OuterGlowBitmapEffect with the new hardware rendered effects, it doesn't seem to be a built-in effect, and I&nbsp; haven't seen any tutorial that shows you how to emulate it; so I'd appreciate if someone could help. Also something like a Window shadow, which I assume is similar, except with an interior clipping region.<br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=410236Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:58:28 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4102360http://channel9.msdn.com/410236/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0I just did a few things with my system---I formatted and did a clean install so I could use Vista 64 instead of 32--since drivers are now available---and downloaded Visual Studio with .NET 3.5 SP1. Now whenever I run an application that was written with WPF, Magnifier doesn't show a magnified view&#8230;brian.shapiro0http://channel9.msdn.com/410236/Trackback.aspxHas anyone checked this :<br><a href="http://visitmix.com/blogs/Joshua/Cloning-the-Outlook-UI-with-Expression-Blend/">Cloning the Outlook UI with Expression Blend</a><br><br><a href="http://www.visitmix.com/images/blogs/ol2k7_tn.png" rel="lightbox"><img src="http://www.visitmix.com/images/blogs/ol2k7_tn.png"></a><br><br>All of the UI elements are interactive, it's not just a mockup.&nbsp; If you want to learn how to build UI like this in Expression Blend, you can download the <a href="http://www.00001001.ch/download/HOL/WPF/Outlook_HOL_WPF.pdf">step-by-step tutorial </a>here .&nbsp; The <a href="http://www.00001001.ch/download/HOL/WPF/Outlook_HOL_WPF_projects.zip">binary files for the lab are here</a>.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409583Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:37:53 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095830http://channel9.msdn.com/409583/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Has anyone checked this :Cloning the Outlook UI with Expression BlendAll of the UI elements are interactive, it's not just a mockup.&nbsp; If you want to learn how to build UI like this in Expression Blend, you can download the step-by-step tutorial here .&nbsp; The binary files for the lab are here.Niner0http://channel9.msdn.com/409583/Trackback.aspxAs much as I think for all the people on the blogosphere who whine about Microsoft, that their opinions aren't worth as much as they think they are, I think Microsoft underestimates the degree to which they have to keep up a show for the sake of their brand image.<br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409572Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:34:25 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095720http://channel9.msdn.com/409572/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0As much as I think for all the people on the blogosphere who whine about Microsoft, that their opinions aren't worth as much as they think they are, I think Microsoft underestimates the degree to which they have to keep up a show for the sake of their brand image.brian.shapiro0http://channel9.msdn.com/409572/Trackback.aspxIt is not about creating value that is a ROI directly, it is about that intangible "feel good" marketing objective.<BR><BR>If Microsoft cannot 'afford' to throw money into a facelift for some utilities or another that are widely used and then give them away freely, then they have a seriously constipated marketing effort, imho.<BR><BR>WPF is not meant to go unnoticed. <BR><BR>My pet peeve is how many programmers using .NET say they don't like Vista and prefer XP.&nbsp; It is worse than Windows vs. DOS in 1989.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409571Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:11:22 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095710http://channel9.msdn.com/409571/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0It is not about creating value that is a ROI directly, it is about that intangible "feel good" marketing objective.If Microsoft cannot 'afford' to throw money into a facelift for some utilities or another that are widely used and then give them away freely, then they have a seriously constipated&#8230;JohnAskew0http://channel9.msdn.com/409571/Trackback.aspxAs I understand it, under the original Longhorn plans the idea was to do the shell in Avalon, and that fell through like almost everything int he development process fell through. A vector-based UI was abandoned when they realized most people don't have good enough graphics cards. A big part of the use of the graphic capabilities in Avalon was to be tied to novel uses of WinFS. I understand why Microsoft may be changing their aims after that.<br><br>I know that your views on this aren't representative of the company's, but I'd see it as something Microsoft would want to do eventually. Like I've said I don't think you've acknowledged the platform advantages of WPF, disregarding the advantages for functionality in a single app.<br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409570Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:00:29 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095700http://channel9.msdn.com/409570/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0As I understand it, under the original Longhorn plans the idea was to do the shell in Avalon, and that fell through like almost everything int he development process fell through. A vector-based UI was abandoned when they realized most people don't have good enough graphics cards. A big part of the&#8230;brian.shapiro0http://channel9.msdn.com/409570/Trackback.aspxBento does not ship in the box with OSX. Nor does iMovie (but I'll let that pass because you get iLife when you buy a new Mac).<BR><BR>You are asking why pieces of Windows are not rewritten and I am showing you examples of the other only popular OS where the development methodology is exactly the same.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409568Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:28:40 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095680http://channel9.msdn.com/409568/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Bento does not ship in the box with OSX. Nor does iMovie (but I'll let that pass because you get iLife when you buy a new Mac).You are asking why pieces of Windows are not rewritten and I am showing you examples of the other only popular OS where the development methodology is exactly the same.PaoloM0http://channel9.msdn.com/409568/Trackback.aspxRarely does rewriting code create value thats makes it worth the massive resources required.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409567Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:07:44 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095670http://channel9.msdn.com/409567/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Rarely does rewriting code create value thats makes it worth the massive resources required.CreamFilling5120http://channel9.msdn.com/409567/Trackback.aspxI personally think WPF is amazing. I have no experience on Window GUI, but WPF does it really easily. Well, I have played around win form, the editor is really easy to use, but all I get is ugly windows. It is also hard to define dynamic layout in WinForm also.<BR><BR>In WPF, I can totally control what's going on with GUI. I can apply unified styles across entire application, like same background for every window in my entire application. I can easily move my stuff in and out of another panel, not using any editor, just notepad. I can easily apply custom panels I found online. I myself also make my own slideshow panel, it is really nice and easy to use also.<BR><BR>Yes, data binding take time to get used to, it is much better in the end.<BR>well, to demonstrate, go to my site&nbsp;jmcphotogallery.net and see how simple WPF can be. Source code is avaliable.<BR><BR>About the complaint on lack of flashy experience. Yes WPF can do it and you can find many example online. The main thing is WPF is a bare bone platform. The default controls are like int and string, they are primitive type. If you want something more, make it yourself or find it online. Don't ask MSFT to make those for you. Yes, surface has all those cool build-in custom controls, and of course I am sure you will need to pay for it instead of get it free.<BR><BR>And yeah, I am disappointed about lack of WPF applications on Vista. I mean at least a WPF live messenger.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409566Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:01:15 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095660http://channel9.msdn.com/409566/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0I personally think WPF is amazing. I have no experience on Window GUI, but WPF does it really easily. Well, I have played around win form, the editor is really easy to use, but all I get is ugly windows. It is also hard to define dynamic layout in WinForm also.In WPF, I can totally control what's&#8230;magicalclick0http://channel9.msdn.com/409566/Trackback.aspxRay,<br><br>A lot of people would have liked Photo Triage in explorer. And about at least a dozen or so other things that have already been coded in MSR<br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409560Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:43:24 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095600http://channel9.msdn.com/409560/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Ray,A lot of people would have liked Photo Triage in explorer. And about at least a dozen or so other things that have already been coded in MSRbrian.shapiro0http://channel9.msdn.com/409560/Trackback.aspx<i>I</i><i> honestly don't know how to repeat this in a way that is easily understandable...<br></i><br>I'm saying the same thing myself ....<br><i><br>Nobody rewrites existing, working, tested software just for fun. Microsoft doesn't do it, Apple doesn't do it, Adobe doesn't do it.<br><br></i>No, Microsoft doesn't do it. Adobe is rewriting the whole front end of the Photoshop suite. Apple has rewritten iMovie. <br><br><i>Let's take a look at an example on your favourite here, OSX. CoreData is the blessed API for dealing with storage scenario. Not a single application that ships in the box with OSX uses CoreData. Are they stupid? Do they not eat their own dogfood?<br><br></i>Bento uses CoreData<br><br><br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409557Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:20:38 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095570http://channel9.msdn.com/409557/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0I honestly don't know how to repeat this in a way that is easily understandable...I'm saying the same thing myself ....Nobody rewrites existing, working, tested software just for fun. Microsoft doesn't do it, Apple doesn't do it, Adobe doesn't do it.No, Microsoft doesn't do it. Adobe is rewriting&#8230;Ray70http://channel9.msdn.com/409557/Trackback.aspxOkay, let's start again shall we?<br><br>No-one is asking you to rewrite chunks of the operating system.&nbsp; All folk are saying is that you have to do something with it before folk will actually take it seriously.<br><br>Now you mention the Finder, and I know that huge swathes of the Mac community would love to see that rewritten in Cocoa, but from a demo technology point of view, I'm not sure that would do them much good since it would look pretty much the same.&nbsp;&nbsp; It will be interesting to see if the Finder gets any attention in the Snow Leopard update; it has some problems that a simple port won't fix.<br><br>But if you want an example of eating your own Dog Food, then take a look at iMovie. Completely rewritten from the ground up. And even when you don't rewrite stuff from the ground up, at least showing people what you can do would be a start; did they rebuild the Finder? No. Did they add CoverFlow to it? Yup.<br><br><br><br><br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409554Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:02:52 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095540http://channel9.msdn.com/409554/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Okay, let's start again shall we?No-one is asking you to rewrite chunks of the operating system.&nbsp; All folk are saying is that you have to do something with it before folk will actually take it seriously.Now you mention the Finder, and I know that huge swathes of the Mac community would love to&#8230;Ray70http://channel9.msdn.com/409554/Trackback.aspx<P>"Nobody rewrites existing, working, tested software just for fun."<BR><BR>Why not?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR><BR>It makes no sense at all to me.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do something. Create luxury, spend money, take a chance, get off your duff.</P>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409546Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:18:36 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095460http://channel9.msdn.com/409546/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0"Nobody rewrites existing, working, tested software just for fun."Why not?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It makes no sense at all to me.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Do something. Create luxury, spend money, take a chance, get off your duff.JohnAskew0http://channel9.msdn.com/409546/Trackback.aspxI honestly don't know how to repeat this in a way that is easily understandable...<BR><BR>Nobody rewrites existing, working, tested software just for fun. Microsoft doesn't do it, Apple doesn't do it, Adobe doesn't do it.<BR><BR>Let's take a look at an example on your favourite here, OSX. CoreData is the blessed API for dealing with storage scenario. Not a single application that ships in the box with OSX uses CoreData. Are they stupid? Do they not eat their own dogfood?<BR><BR>No, they simply recognize the value of working code.<BR><BR>Why iTunes, arguably their most successful application by far,&nbsp;is still written in Carbon? Do not they believe that Cocoa would be better?<BR><BR>Again, new development can use new tools and frameworks, look at Aperture (pure Cocoa) or Expression (pure .NET/WPF) or pretty much all Microsoft's web properties (all ASP.NET). There is no reason to rewrite good code. Not a single one reason.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409520Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:19:27 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095200http://channel9.msdn.com/409520/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0I honestly don't know how to repeat this in a way that is easily understandable...Nobody rewrites existing, working, tested software just for fun. Microsoft doesn't do it, Apple doesn't do it, Adobe doesn't do it.Let's take a look at an example on your favourite here, OSX. CoreData is the blessed&#8230;PaoloM0http://channel9.msdn.com/409520/Trackback.aspxYeah, that's why the Finder is still Carbon (hey, 32 bit!) and not the blessed Cocoa, right?http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409515Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:08:00 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4095150http://channel9.msdn.com/409515/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Yeah, that's why the Finder is still Carbon (hey, 32 bit!) and not the blessed Cocoa, right?PaoloM0http://channel9.msdn.com/409515/Trackback.aspxPossibly the most frightening thread I've ever read on this forum to be honest with you, but also the most enlightening.<br> <br> <i>Unfortunately for the likes of nightski, brian.shapiro, Ray7, NitzWalsh, JohnAskew (apologies to others unmentioned) it takes an extraordinary amount of effort to explain things that appear abundantly perspicacious and immediate. You guys are visionaries.</i><br> <br> Nice of you to say so ... but let's look at what we're really saying here:<br> <br> YOU HAVE TO EAT YOUR OWN DOGFOOD There is nothing 'visionary' about it ... it's basic common sense. If you want folk to believe in you, then you have to show that you believe in yourself.<br><br>I'm just not seeing this from Microsoft anymore. <br><br> <br> <br> <br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409483Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:58:43 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4094830http://channel9.msdn.com/409483/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Possibly the most frightening thread I've ever read on this forum to be honest with you, but also the most enlightening. Unfortunately for the likes of nightski, brian.shapiro, Ray7, NitzWalsh, JohnAskew (apologies to others unmentioned) it takes an extraordinary amount of effort to explain things&#8230;Ray70http://channel9.msdn.com/409483/Trackback.aspxThe Mac platform.<br><br>Not just fresh applications, but old applications are rewritten to take advantage of new UX developments in the OS.<br><br>Can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but usually it makes for an exciting and vibrant platform.<br><br>Sorry I missed your reply, it was a good question.<br><br><br><br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409479Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:50:44 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4094790http://channel9.msdn.com/409479/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0The Mac platform.Not just fresh applications, but old applications are rewritten to take advantage of new UX developments in the OS.Can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but usually it makes for an exciting and vibrant platform.Sorry I missed your reply, it was a good question.Ray70http://channel9.msdn.com/409479/Trackback.aspx<i>Windows Live mail and Windows mail appear to me to be WPF,<br><br></i>WLMail certainly isn't because you don't need .net framework 3 (or whichever one includes the wpf stuff) to install it on xp.<br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409429Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:31:09 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4094290http://channel9.msdn.com/409429/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Windows Live mail and Windows mail appear to me to be WPF,WLMail certainly isn't because you don't need .net framework 3 (or whichever one includes the wpf stuff) to install it on xp.GoddersUK0http://channel9.msdn.com/409429/Trackback.aspxYes Kitron it does make alarming reading. I just hope that some people at Microsoft have listened and taken note of the posts related to this, because the discontent people have is only likely to continue.<br><br>The biggest mistake Microsoft made with Vista is changing all the way applications are written in the operating system, and proceed to provide us with 100% of the old ones. They are unwilling to update their old ones, which leaves you wondering why they bothered releasing Vista the operating system?<br><br>To put it another way, you have smashed down your old house, and built a new one (albeit with a stronger foundation, but the old one was strong enough - other houses in the same street are still standing (XP)), and then proceeded to use the same 15 year old dirty carpets, and 10 year old gas boiler, even the sinks, shower and bathtubs are the same grotty ones you had in the previous house. You've also decided to paint the house exactly the same colour as previous, kept the same sofas that the dogs have chewed over the last 5 years, even the beds and bedding have remained the same. It's the same 10 year old television (some people have flat screens now in the same street), the same phones and light fittings, even down the the same dustbin and doors. You have added a state of the art security system though from a company called UserAccountControl. Your washing machine and fridge have both worked for the last 15 years, so you see no reason to change to newer models because there is no benefit, it costs more, for the same functionality.<br><br>I know this analogy is rather 'over-the-top', but this is how your users feel, and this is why they complain, and it will only get worse for you, unless you change the furniture for something newer, nicer, fresher, lighter and brighter. This is how people feel about software. This is the place we live in visually, more and more each day. We will never come to your dinner parties again (Vista) because your house is grotty, depressing and archaic. We also know to look out for the same furniture in Windows 7. <br><br><br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409422Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:05:25 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4094220http://channel9.msdn.com/409422/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Yes Kitron it does make alarming reading. I just hope that some people at Microsoft have listened and taken note of the posts related to this, because the discontent people have is only likely to continue.The biggest mistake Microsoft made with Vista is changing all the way applications are written&#8230;vesuvius0http://channel9.msdn.com/409422/Trackback.aspxI'm watching the video about the changes to WPF SP1 right now (or was, but my connection just dropped out and the video died) and David says that BitmapEffects (specifically blur and drop shadow) are being hardware accelerated in addition to the new shader-based effect system.<br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409284Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:39:40 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4092840http://channel9.msdn.com/409284/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0I'm watching the video about the changes to WPF SP1 right now (or was, but my connection just dropped out and the video died) and David says that BitmapEffects (specifically blur and drop shadow) are being hardware accelerated in addition to the new shader-based effect system.JonathonW0http://channel9.msdn.com/409284/Trackback.aspxHere is a quote from a recent article in BusinessWeek<br>(http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2008/tc20080610_435192.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)<br><br>""It seems like the IT community has turned tepid to negative" on Vista, says Di Bona in an interview. "There aren't any features in there they find compelling—even ones that haven't had bad PR." For example, companies said in the survey that they were indifferent to Vista's Windows Presentation Foundation technology for building visually compelling programs, according to Di Bona."<br><br>Now don't you think that if Microsoft would've actually released Vista with some eye candy and actually build some applications that demonstrated why wpf can help (in business and at home) that would've maybe push Vista, WPF, Silverlight adoption?&nbsp;&nbsp; Same problem is demonstrated over and over again with this company:&nbsp; Microsoft doesn't know how to sell itself.&nbsp; It might have worked in the past but I am not so sure that it will work in the future.<br><br><br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409272Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:54:08 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4092720http://channel9.msdn.com/409272/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Here is a quote from a recent article in BusinessWeek(http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2008/tc20080610_435192.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)""It seems like the IT community has turned tepid to negative" on Vista, says Di Bona in an interview. "There aren't any features in there they find&#8230;kitron0http://channel9.msdn.com/409272/Trackback.aspxYes BitmapEffect is effectively deprecated and has been replaced by the new shader style effects, which are hardware accelerated if possbile or run through a much more optimised code path than BitmapEffect if pixel shader hardware isn't available.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409209Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:19:56 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4092090http://channel9.msdn.com/409209/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Yes BitmapEffect is effectively deprecated and has been replaced by the new shader style effects, which are hardware accelerated if possbile or run through a much more optimised code path than BitmapEffect if pixel shader hardware isn't available.AndyC0http://channel9.msdn.com/409209/Trackback.aspx<p>Firstly I would like to thank the slew of people that have contributed to this post, it has at least made it glaringly obvious that there are people that are really <i>passionate</i> about design. It has also highlighted the difficulty some developers (exceedingly clever ones at that) and users have in visualising the ability of the platform to increase the usability, browsability, presentability and chiefly the <i>beauty</i> of the environment. I fear that this beauty will percolate either by immediate perception or unfortunately by the protracted obsolescence of current software usage.</p> <p>It’s like’ banging your head against a brick wall’ sometimes, trying to make people see the possibilities. Even when links are provided to the likes of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Explanations-Quantities-Evidence-Narrative/dp/0961392126">Edward Tufte,</a> not WPF specific, but design specific, they pass by the wayside. One other disadvantage is the fact that most people have not written MFC, Windows Forms and WPF, so are unable to perform a ‘like for like’ comparison. Unfortunately for the likes of nightski, brian.shapiro, Ray7, NitzWalsh, JohnAskew (apologies to others unmentioned) it takes an <i>extraordinary</i> amount of effort to explain things that appear abundantly perspicacious and immediate. You guys are visionaries.</p> <p>&nbsp;A digression: &nbsp;“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton">Isaac Newton</a>.</p> <p>&nbsp;I have just been reading Chris Anderson’s book on WPF, and it is extraordinary the amount of people that have been involved in this project (WPF). &nbsp;At least 300 people from about 2002/3 and I presume that amount may have increased (book from Jan 2007). It is only when you understand ‘how and the why’ that it seems flummoxing why people just don’t seem to get it. There are a plethora of baby applications within the OS that could have been improved, but enough of that line of argument.</p> <p>What I am going to take away from this thread is the fact that design is <u>important</u>, and only the visionaries can take this further. I am going to try to prove myself visually (and technically – the two are <i>not </i>mutually exclusive) and improve things. Those incapable of grasping this, can re-examine their views when they have something tangible, and say “Oh, that’s what those guys were on about!”</p> <p>Visionaries!<br>&nbsp;</p> <p>PS: Gratitude to PaoloM for putting up with being pilloried or some may say, healthy debate.</p><p></p>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409207Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:13:12 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4092070http://channel9.msdn.com/409207/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0Firstly I would like to thank the slew of people that have contributed to this post, it has at least made it glaringly obvious that there are people that are really passionate about design. It has also highlighted the difficulty some developers (exceedingly clever ones at that) and users have in&#8230;vesuvius0http://channel9.msdn.com/409207/Trackback.aspxI think BitmapEffect will stay software rendered, but a new type of effects will be added that's based on shaders and thus hardware accelerated.http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409189Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:11:06 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4091890http://channel9.msdn.com/409189/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0I think BitmapEffect will stay software rendered, but a new type of effects will be added that's based on shaders and thus hardware accelerated.Sven Groot0http://channel9.msdn.com/409189/Trackback.aspxWPF BitmapEffect hardware rendering IIRC is due in 3.5 SP1<br>http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=409186Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:59:20 GMThttp://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/408270-When-will-Microsoft-ship-a-WPF-product/?CommentID=4091860http://channel9.msdn.com/409186/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0WPF BitmapEffect hardware rendering IIRC is due in 3.5 SP1John0http://channel9.msdn.com/409186/Trackback.aspx