CUDA is also perhaps one of the most bizarre craps I've had the pleasure of having on my computer. But, AMD is not better. Maybe many of these hardware companies don't have the knowhow to maintain working software? Allowing them to have remote root access to install their software into your computer at will is probably not a prudent decision.
Go look at a screenshot of a 90s game and see how blurry the textures are and how blocky the meshes are. This corresponds to less information to store and process. That is why they fit in hundreds of MBs. It's not like people are * programmers now, it's just that games got a whole lot more complex, bigger in scope too, but also just more information dense per unit of play. So even if they were of the same gameplay they would be a lot larger simply because the graphics are a lot better.
Good thing HDDs got bigger, bandwidth is cheaper, GPUs are faster and have more memory. :)
Me think it could be easier to just add support of Flash/Silverlight/VRML to all platforms and not reinvent the wheel.
(As for why I don't put HTML5 Canvas or SVG here, it's because they lacks some functionaility in doing interactive polygon graphics. If they add support for DOM events to all the Paths and Shapes inside the Canvas, I'd be happy)
Flash/Sliverlight/VRML all essentially failed. And the first two are proprietary, so reinventing the wheel is legally necessary. Regardless, pretty much the only way you'll get them to succeed is if you become literally the dictator of the world and forced all these random adversaries with competing interests to use your pet technology on pain of death. Maybe EvilD has some experience with that considering his username. :) To me, that seems a whole lot more difficult then just creating a new technical standard.
This is huge. People will be able to make crossplatform applications that run at native speed on all platforms, AND integrate flawlessly with the rest of web technology (DOM manipulation/etc.). Let me say that again:
- Cross-platform - all the major web browser vendors on board
- Native speed (think C/C++ speed)
- Full integration with the web
Actually most of the LOB applications ditched Win32. They look the same as Win32, but, they are C# .Net Apps in WinForm. On top of that, several years ago when I hunt around the sales-inventory solutions, aside from them all being .Net, some of them are fancy WPF and nice looking charts. Win32 in LOB has been long replaced by .Net and large percentage replaced by WPF.
But, the reason is simple, going to .NET and WPF has zero risk to customer and product provider. Customer can use .NET 1 2 3, without any unexpected behavior and it runs on "XP!!!!!!".
But, metor, modern, UA, UWPA are literally tard. And death of modern Skype proves that. Honestly I started this thread just thinking how stupid of MS to jump ship from their own modern platform. And now I got slapped with some insane truth about why modern platform remains as a joke. The joke is how volatile the platform truly is.
WPF is proprietary, it has the same risks as the others you mentioned. Microsoft can simply kill it, or start charging $50,000 to use it, or whatever suits their current or future business goals (which does not always align with yours) and there is ZERO you can do about it. Thus making WPF a hard dependency of your software is extremely risky. Much of .NET these days however does not have this risk, but WPF does.
I wouldn't even call it risky: the idea of building your intellectual property ontop of some other companies IP that you have zero leverage over is in all circumstances, asking for trouble in the future. It's not about a calculated risk, it's just stupid. It means you have little actual control over your own IP. Your control over your own technology is only as strong as your control over its dependencies.
Some people are always doubters about this, but I get proven right time and time and time and time again. It's not that I have a crystal ball. It's just that I understand that a company is not a charity. They are only interested in your business as far as it suits their own. Once it's no longer necessary or possible to sell a proprietary platform, the vendor's interests will no longer align with your own - they have no need for that anymore.
No thanks. That breadboard didn't wire itself. You * up one thing and the whole system is fried with no way of knowing why. I'll stick to cryptic compiler errors thank you very much.
It's not the new APIs that are the hillarious thing (MS has a bazillion of them anyway) but Microsoft's repeated declarations that everything until metro/modern/winrt/ua/uwp/wtf is legacy and dead and what not is the funniest thing I've seen in IT for ages. It beats Stallman's foot fetish by a wide margin.
Win32 is still around obviously. They need to keep it around so that the suckers who bought into proprietary years ago can't escape. I wouldn't surprised if Microsoft soon forces a special "legacy" version of Windows that is like four/five figures per desktop license cost just to drain all the possible money from the suckers. Consider how much Microsoft got paid for extended support for Windows XP. Taking advantage of API locked in organizations by forcing them into license agreements they can't refuse is not a new Microsoft invention by the way. It's a classic from all the major platform vendors.
But Microsoft must be seen as de-emphasising of Win32 for the same exact reason they are keeping it around. Win32 is a major point of contention. As the case with any fully proprietary platform, it forces you into a potentially abusive business relationship essentially for the life of your software. The biggest fear of non-Microsoft IT decision makers is right there. Even those decision makers thinking in the short term mostly aren't that stupid anymore. Microsoft can not be seen as promoting lock in if they are to grow.
Microsoft is making amends with the technical community, that's why it might look like that to you. Maybe to you it's a bunch of "freetards", but go visit Hacker News or Reddit's tech subreddits some time, I've seen it personally, the opinion of Microsoft has increased over the last few years.
Your opinion is irrelevant because you already tied yourself to Microsoft. Pleasing you is literally pointless. Microsoft is working only to please those not buying Microsoft, all their decisions must be looked through that lens.
Quite frankly with all the bitching about Windows and threads and other crap that pollutes C9, I'm sure you still run Windows. You are almost religiously anti-Linux. I doubt you are an Apple user also. Microsoft thanks you. There is only one legit way to make Microsoft care and that's to stop giving them your business. Microsoft knows that you are too invested in the Microsoft ecosystem to leave and disregard pretty much everything you say as appropriate. You aren't going to leave the Microsoft system because you are both too used to Windows and probably developed a Win32-exclusive infrastructure. Microsoft doesn't owe you anything, you are already owned. It's like expecting good followup customer service after signing a lifetime contract.
From my perspective Microsoft is doing a lot of things these days to make Windows a whole let less awful then it was. With SSH support and package management, with containers and puppet/chef support. I care about all these things. But I don't care about Metro, I'm in a SSH session or IDE most of the time anyway. Why should I care about Metro? Microsoft's contributions to open source, it's massive these days. I care about that. There is a whole lot less for me to talk shiit about. What am I going to talk * about? The default color scheme? Seriously?
Why do they care about pleasing me and not you? This should not be surprising. I'm not invested in Microsoft. I indirectly give money to their competitors, and recommend their competitors products. All the time. They are making this harder though. I can't be like Microsoft doesn't play well with other systems. It's harder to make that argument. That's the point. Their business strategy is to target people outside of Microsoft ecoystem, addressing the concerns of people who aren't dependent on Microsoft. The people who legit don't give them money, and are afraid of giving them money even when sometimes they legit have a better product, because they don't want to deal with the interoperability and lock in issues.
Basically, they are catering to people like me. My concerns are driving Microsoft. Not yours. Their whole strategy revolves around making Windows more appealing to Linux and Apple users. Because quite frankly, we matter more. :)