A key feature I like in my operating systems is the ability to disable any bundled remote backdoors. It might seem a bit futuristic, but it makes a lot of the other features of an OS feel more like a "nice to have" in comparison.
Has anyone figured out a way to hack Windows 10 to disable all the creepy remote control/monitoring features you can't opt out of? It's not like some registry key you can unset or something? Or a some hacked system DLLs with the new features NOP'ed?
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.