Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

DeathByVisualStudio DeathBy​VisualStudio If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
  • Dat Start Menu (NOT COMING IN 8.1 Update BUT SOME TIME LATER edition)

    contextfree` wrote

    e.g., the right-click menu does reduce mouse travel which is a real enough advantage, and also is more consistent with desktop conventions, but at the cost of breaking multiselection, reducing the effectiveness of visual memory in finding commands, and removing consistency between mouse and touch methods for doing the same thing.

    I respect your opinion but they didn't break multi-select. It restored it to its former behavior. Hold the <CTRL> key down and click away.

    , contextfree` wrote

    Yeah, I actually think of it as a variant of the Office selection/commanding model, with the floating mini-toolbar and contextual tabs. I would prefer to see the floatie adopted everywhere (with the original "fade in as your mouse pointer approaches" behavior from Office 2007/2010), then they could maintain the mouse travel advantage of desktop context menus while also maintaining the simpler selection model, richer icons etc., and more consistency between mouse and touch layouts that the app bar commands had.

    Maybe I'm old but those floating menus always get in my way. I find myself constantly hitting <ESC> to dismiss them. I left them on thinking I'd "learn" to use them.

    That said I think the radial menus that the OneNote Windows Store app uses are great for touch.

    I really think it's better to build around the input device rather than take the one-size-fits-all approach. Even in "touch" mode, Office 2013 isn't a great touch experience.

    , brian.​shapiro wrote

    Oh man, I'm so used to using the scrollbar to scroll the Start Screen as soon as I had it open, now I have to remember to use the scroll wheel. The taskbar doesn't disappear until you force it to.

    That seems like a lot of work to scroll (i.e. targeting the scroll bar). Maybe using <PAGE UP>/<PAGE DOWN> would work better for you than the scroll wheel? ;) (Just a bit of sarcasm there as I'm not fond of people excusing bad behavior with "you just have to learn the keyboard shortcuts")

    Honestly I dislike having to use scroll bars of any kind. It drives me nuts when things like a browser is slow in loading the last bits of a web page, the scroll wheel is unresponsive, and you have to reach for the scroll bar to scroll down the page.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    You have a lot of hate, but not very many constructive suggestions. 

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    I apologize.

    I forgive you.

     

  • Dat Start Menu (NOT COMING IN 8.1 Update BUT SOME TIME LATER edition)

    , bondsbw wrote

    @wastingtimewithforums:  Chill, dude.

    And I said that as the mobile strategy began to pick up steam, Microsoft would start to rebalance its focus on enterprise users and non-mobile situations (while maintaining and not completely reversing its mobile strategy).

    "Rebalance" is where you got it wrong IMO. They are restoring the desktop with the return of the start button (and start menu in the future), context menus, options to stay on the desktop, etc. You don't remove something and then put it back and call it "rebalancing" like it was all part of a master plan. If they were truly "rebalancing" we'd see changes like allowing WPF apps access to WinRT APIs like share contracts. To-date the best they can muster on the WPF front is "WPF is not dead".

    Also where do you get the idea that people are calling for Microsoft to roll back its mobile strategy? Restoring the desktop and providing a more mouse + keyboard friendly version of the start screen and other store-esq additions is hardly a rollback of their mobile strategy. If anything they've gotten smarter with their mobile strategy with the addition of things like Universal apps -- something that should have been part of the plan back with WP7.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    See:

    *snip*

    "Indiscriminate" or "throw a switch to enable", pick one.

    I don't have to. You're reading into this what you want. Your word bending powers are only working in your mind and not in reality. Let's see what happens when I try:

    "users don't need antivirus or training" or "desktop is still important", pick one.

    Hey that's a pretty neat trick when you throw out context! :)

    *snip*

    That makes no sense. Are you completely disregarding the innumerable "free downloads" sites that are out there? All of a sudden users don't need antivirus or training to avoid problems? Anyway, the desktop is still important and will be around in some form or another for a very long time.

    How much protection do people need? Are you going to hold my hand when I walk across the street in the "free" crosswalk? Hell that's not even a fair comparison because there's nothing a user needs to do to enable using the "free" crosswalk.

    There are a couple of alternative app stores for jailbroken iOS and Android devices. Do they get used by a statistically significant number of people, or are they popular with enthusiasts only? If you convince my Grandma that she needs to jailbreak her iPad in order to install your particular brand of dancing bunnies app, I will hunt you down. However, if I (as an enthusiast and technical user) decide that I'm going to jailbreak my own device to enhance my bunny viewing experience, then that is my risk to take.

    How many people are using these alternative app stores? Good question. How about you find the answer rather than using the question as FUD.

    And Jailbreak? Who said anything about that? Are you suggesting that businesses are paying $100 to jailbreak their devices in order to sideload? We're talking about a setting that users would have to change in order to sideload, not jailbreak. Sounds like more of the same hyperbole from kettch.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , Bas wrote

    *snip*

    No, because sideloaded apps can break out of that sandbox partially. For instance if you want to connect to servers on localhost, or want to use .NET libraries, you can do that in sideloaded apps, but you can't do that in an app you plan to submit to the store. That's one of the reasons for sideloading.

    Great so if the consumer wants to remain protected they stick with Store apps. Sounds like a reasonable choice a consumer can make. Microsoft could throw a ridiculously scary warning message when a user turns on side-loading to better ensure they were making a choice they understood.

    , kettch wrote

    @DeathByVisualStudio:At least with an app from the Store, the dancing bunnies are only just that, dancing bunnies. With indiscriminant sideloading we're back to the same old problems.

    These "other marketplaces" would just end up being taken over by CNet and their ilk. They've done such a great job of helping people find applications.

    We're not back to the same old problem. "Dancing bunnies" only take over if people are willing to take the risk in enabling side-loading on their device. The user has to throw the switch. A web site can't do it for them. Sounds like a whole lot of FUD to me.

    The bottom line IMO is that this is a financial issue for Microsoft. They're trying to appease businesses (a good thing) while retaining their profits from consumer software sales from the Windows Store. This really has little to do with protecting consumers. If that were the case they'd ship a version of Windows 8 Pro with no desktop at all -- you know for folks like you who fear users would install "dancing bunnies" like apps.

    I've got no sympathy with Microsoft on this as this is just par for the course with their decision on merging traditional Windows used by business with "New Windows" designed for consumers.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    That's not how money works. It's not 30% of profit that's 30% of the gross. The remaining 70% is still not profit when you get down to it, but let's move on: 30% is overhead for not needing to build an entire website with advertising, download, payment, analytics, feedback, and support mechanisms. 30% is being able to distribute an application to customers all over the world and have them know and trust that it's safe to buy my app without worrying about giving money to some wonky vendor who they've never heard of. My time is worth a whole lot more than 30 cents a download. Maybe yours isn't, but some of us have lives.

    Your assumption is that all developers want to pay for Microsoft's "advertising, download, payment, analytics, feedback, and support mechanisms." With most hosting packages it's pretty easy to setup your own store. If Microsoft allowed for side-loading indiscriminately I would imagine there would be other marketplaces that would open up. That of course would eat away at Microsoft's profits from store revenue which they seem to becoming more dependent on with giving away Windows in a lot of cases now.

    If they opened up side-loading to everyone you could make a case for security but I don't think a lot of consumers would start shopping elsewhere because of security concerns so in the end that's not much of a issue. Besides Windows is now the most secure OS on the planet right? Modern apps are super sandboxed and pose no threat to the underlying OS right?

  • Make CodeLens Available Outside of Ultimate

    , AndyC wrote

    *snip*

    The people who really want that feature, those for whom it can make significant enough difference to, will simply buy the most expensive version anyway. However a lot of people who don't actually need anything from the feature set not in the Pro version will buy Premium simply because of the decoy effect. People's psychology when it comes to choosing products may seem weird, but it's a well studied and reliable marketing technique.

    While I agree on the decoy effect I don't agree that CodeLense should be left to rot in Ultimate. It's too useful of a feature. IMO they wouldn't effect the decoy effect in moving CodeLense to Premium as long as they kept the price for Ultimate ridiculously high. Unlike the architect tools that Ultimate has CodeLense is useful to a much wider array of developers.

  • Make CodeLens Available Outside of Ultimate

    , AndyC wrote

    You can argue that about any product that's split into SKU's though. At the end of the day however, market segmentation works as a profit making strategy and if it is bringing in enough money, then it doesn't make sense to cripple your income stream by putting the really desirable features in low end versions.

    Personally I suspect Ultimate is there for the decoy effect more than anything, so it's probably really a question of how many are buying Premium where they would previously have opted for just Pro.

    So Microsoft builds this great technology that they theoretically make lots of money on but yet they don't because it's a decoy and in the end very few get to benefit from it? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think you can claim a product as a decoy and also say they'll cripple their income stream by moving such a desirable feature to a lower priced SKU. If anything the decoy should have less of a benefit like Windows 7 Ultimate did where the vast majority of people bought lower priced SKUs because the Ultimate SKU offered very little to incentive to buy.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , Jason818 wrote

    *snip*

    Yes, I think we all agree with this. The issue being debated is regarding the back lash from some who disagree with some one ellses legally valid opinion and actions. Is it ok to do back to some one what they did to you? Its the whole eye for an eye makes the whole world blind kind of thing. If no one stops then their is continual bickering. 

    Sad but true. The law is typically behind the times because change is hard for many, hate is easy , and the powerful leverage both (hence "eye-for-an-eye" mentality). It's sad that we have to fall back to the position of "legally valid" to justify our bad behavior. Was it wrong for Wall Street bankers to make billions during and after the market crash? Sure it was but it was also very legal.

  • Microsoft eliminates license fee on all phones and mid-sized tablets running Windows

    , AndyC wrote

    *snip*

    Well right now too many routers aren't getting any updates, so even if the OS was getting updates whilst third party routing code wasn't, it'd be a step up from where we are today. Right now the FOSS model clearly isn't working as a method of getting end users secure devices and I'd jump on any solution that took steps towards rectifying that (the nearest today are some hacky third-party Linux router replacement firmware, but that's not a solution I can recommend to non tech people)

    You're assuming that the router exploits are kernel based. If the vast majority aren't then you're just pissing in the wind swapping kernels.