Can you also consider publishing transcripts for all videos ?
It's pretty much easier to read instead of listen for some people.
CplCarrot wrote:The question is asked "how many developers do you need for these tools to be effective". This question come on the back of a short explanation of code coverage.
Instantly I said ONE. Code coverage for a solo developer would be great.
I've found some good side of such a high pricing. Currently huge corps have a lot of people working on thouse lame tasks like a testing / code coverage / review / documentation / ...
Team System promise to make it as easy as "Click Here to Start" inside Windows 95. Thus - in case if it will be allowed to use entire product effectively by a single developer - then all others people will be fired (think about - most of companies now think about cost saving - not market share increase).
So - if thouse tools will requere 5 persons to using them - then 5 people will have a job. PAID JOB !!
You have to train yourself to find something good in any event.
Nov 04, 2004 at 4:16PMCharles wrote:
Beer28 wrote: can you .... ?
Like do ... ?
Is microsoft ...?
Does anybody ... ?
The answer to all three questions is No.
If 1+1+1+1 == 3 then No == Yes ?
Nov 04, 2004 at 3:11AM
Nov 04, 2004 at 2:02AMChannel9 Website wrote:Microsoft was about 600 people back when he started (it's about 57,000 times today).
Using calc.exe 600 * 57000 = 34,200,000
Pretty impressive headcount for one Corp.
As a developer I wholeheartedly disagree. Microsoft's new, open attitude is a great thing for me and helps me to do my job more effectively. Ok, maybe I can't plan 10 years down the road but I can certainly plan 3-5 years. Discussing features that will or won't make it to the final release, and keeping us updated, is really important to developers. Keep up the good work guys!
3-5 years ? Can you tell me then your next paycheck will arrive ? Every two weeks ? Ohh ...
This mean that company you are working for - need solution currently, today, already installed and working .... !
I believe that focus on far future is flawed. I preffer more focus given on current Microsoft offerings.
As developer - visit http://msdn.microsoft.com and take a look that you see ?
Instead of assisting you with current development problems - you see articles about product you will not be used in production for at least 1-1,5 years ! This is clearly an attempt to push you to buy this new product.
Sure .. This will benefit you if you will read all thouse articles in advance.
But for most of msnd.microsoft.com visitors - they need their projects to be done today, not in 2+ timeframe. So you are unable to benefit from thouse articles currently
crispybit wrote:I just find it hilarious how people are saying that LH is going down the tubes, JUST BECAUSE MS removed winFS from the inital release of LH which as many people on here stated, IS NOT, I repeat IS NOT a "File System",
Nobody told here that they are worried if this is FS or nope.
Main issue is trust. Then Microsoft will anounce next time that they are going to build "next big thing" - nobody will trust them.
If you are unable to maintain schedule - keep it private!
Take a look on Apple. They keep all information about future private, but they produce cool products !
I believe that there is no needs for Microsoft to anounce their plans up to 10 years ahead.
Simply keep old (possibly a little bit modified cover page wording from 1990 annual report "Our most important accomplishment during our fist 15 years has been to prepare ourself for the next 15"
JFYI: 1990+15 = 2005
Okay, basically, nothing's really changed... if you go back far enough. Back during the Whistler beta, the roadmap was quite simple - Whistler, followed by Blackcomb. The specifications for Blackcomb were laid down, UI prototypes and concepts were created and demoed at the Financial Analysts meeting by Steve Guggenheimer, and Blackcomb was all set to become the next major client release of Windows.
I can confirm this. Here is an email in my Inbox from Microsoft dated Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:01:27 -0800
Paul Richardson (WINDOWS) wrote:
Thank you for the report.
The WindowsXP development team is aware of this issue and there have
been other reports of similar behavior. As such, this bug has been
resolved as "duplicate". But at this time, only the most critical bugs -
bugs that will stop the shipping and/or deployment of WindowsXP are
being fixed. The master bug will remain active and be re-visited after
the release of WindowsXP for further consideration/investigation.
The problem you describe is currently not possible because the XXXX
XXXXXXXX is not fully PnP (among other reasons). When it is uninstalled,
it requires a reboot before it can be re-installed due to some services
not being able to shut down. We don't allow components that require
reboots on uninstall to be re-installed without rebooting first (for
many, many good reasons). Resolving this as a duplicate of the
XXXXX-removal bug for Blackcomb, which has the XXXXX PnP bug as a
If you disagree with this course of action please send me mail
explaining the reasons why the bug must be considered for the WindowsXP
release and we will revisit the issue at that time and escalate
Thank you again for your efforts and support,
Windows Whistler Beta Team
So ? What is your current estimate on timing for this bug report to be fixed ? 2001-2008 (Blackcomb) or 2001-2005 (Longhorn) ?
Anyway - several years for a fix - this is cool
With Windows 2000, it was 2000 Professional, 2000 Server and I have a feeling there were a few other Windows 2000 branded releases, but those are the only ones that come to mind at this point in time.
You forgot about Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, Windows NT 4.0 Server, Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition.
As well version of Windows NT 4.0 Option Pack vs. Service Packs !!
Go back to history plz ..
I believe that Windows 2003 Server is in reality Windows XP Server (or Windows 5.1 Enterpise Server, Windows 5.1 Server, Windows 5.1 Workstation, windows 5.1 for Kids
I've expected this. Separating Windows Servers and Windows Clients has clear business benefit for Microsoft (read: more money collected!)
This motivation similar to one used for separation of Winter and Summer Olympics.
This is pretty smart move.
Microsoft already releases their software on annual basis. Service packs always add new features (in constast with legendary "no new features in service packs" promise).
But pay-us-for-upgrade versions ('major' releases) become rare.
This is smart move to separate client and server releases in different financial years. This way business can pay twice (once for clients and once more for servers).
I think that Microsoft will have to release Service Pack (free upgrade) for Longhorn clients in the same time they release Longhorn Servers.
Just like in was for WinXP SP1 and Windows 2003.
As for trimming features - this was expected taking in account announced delays. They were able to release Service Pack or stand-alone applications for WinXP/2003 with new technologies or bundle part of them in new (but trimmed from original expectations) OS version. They decided to do both.