RichardRudek RichardRudek So what do you expect for nothin'... :P

Niner since 2006

Tinkered and worked on PC's since 1980. Studied Electronics, Programming, etc. Very Happy living and working in Sydney, Australia . . . . . BLOG:



  • Ray Ozzie: Introducing Live Mesh

    I don't know why Dan doesn't post the low res link, [but here it is] 131.6MB.

    I right-click then choose save as file.
  • Ken Levy and Aaron Marten: Visual Studio 2008 ​Extensibili​ty

    Dan wrote:
    RichardRudek wrote:
    I'm starting to feel like a junk-yard dog...

    It's taking too long to download. Can you guys try to have a little consistency between you. I prefer a lower resolution video. The 320x240 512Kbps is fine for whiteboard stuff (not that I know whether it's in this video or not), and when you zoom in, it's also fine for the videoed 'screencast' stuff too.

    Actually, it would help if you started to rate the content, so we can make informed choices about what to download - ie maybe this one only needs the audio...

    I can add the low-res version, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by ratings or how ratings would help you choose whether you only need the audio. Can you explain a bit more?

    First off, thanks for the video. Though, I can't help the feeling of [deja vu]...

    Ratings is probably a bad word to use to describe what I meant. Basically, if the content is just head-shots and talk, then that would be an audio-only recommendation.

    White-board only would be a low res video recommendation.

    Video recorded screencasts, with lazy camera operation (not zooming in close as approriate with the conversation) would be a high res recommendation.

    Now if your really into editing/post production, you could take a portable hard disk with you, and save a proper screencast to it. Obviously, the screencast machine will need to have Window Media Encoder (or a commercial product that does it), but at least you get a full-res, high quality, low bandwidth (separate) recording that you could render into a single video stream, later. Better still, produce a multiple stream source that switches appropriately between the screencast and video streams. The best of both worlds for the end users, though a huge PITA for you guys... [A]

    Thanks for the video  Smiley
  • Ken Levy and Aaron Marten: Visual Studio 2008 ​Extensibili​ty

    I'm starting to feel like a junk-yard dog...

    It's taking too long to download. Can you guys try to have a little consistency between you. I prefer a lower resolution video. The 320x240 512Kbps is fine for whiteboard stuff (not that I know whether it's in this video or not), and when you zoom in, it's also fine for the videoed 'screencast' stuff too.

    Actually, it would help if you started to rate the content, so we can make informed choices about what to download - ie maybe this one only needs the audio...
  • Ted Kummert, S. Somasegar (Soma), Bill Laing: On Trifecta Launching and Working Together - Enter SQL

    I don't know what to think about this 'new style'. At the start, there was too much camera hopping, which made me stop the video, and try to come online and complain.

    As the site was (is still) having trouble, I decided to try watching it again, and eventually the camera hopping subsided to a more acceptable level, instead using slow zooms.

    Content-wise, there wasn't a lot of value, so if it wasn't for my aggravation with the production, I wouldn't have commented... Expressionless
  • Miguel de Icaza and Dragos Manolescu: On Open Source, Mono and Moonlight


    I've been trying to wait patiently for the low res link to come live, but no. I'm now downloading the full resolution one.

    But seriously, are you guys keeping track of how many people are downloading the low res one even though it's not well highlighted ?

    I'd suggest that if you swapped the links around (made the low res then main, with the high res being the exception) you would see the numbers change. Often, the hi-res is just way over the top, considering the content.

    It's not that I don't have the bandwidth. I just hate having to manage the disk space so often, and it just smacks of egotism (or should that be pomposity)... Expressionless

  • This Week on Channel 9: Feb 15 with Scott Hanselman!

    Ha ha:
        You can't light a porcupine on fire and get liquorish...

    I suppose it depends on what it's been eating... sugar beets... Expressionless
  • Burton Smith: On General Purpose Super Computing and the History and Future of Parallelism

    Excellent nothing. That was a brilliant video.

    Thank you Burton, and thank you Charles.

    PS: As for Dave Cutler. I certainly don't want to disrespect him in any way, but my mischievous side just can't resist: My take is that he spends a lot of his time in the primitive world of the Operating System Kernel, etc, and has thus adopted primitive beliefs about Cameras/Pictures stealing people's souls... Either that or he can't trust himself to keep a secret...[A]

  • Erik Meijer: Functional Programming

    stevo_ wrote:
    So ok, great, we have a system where everything is 'honest' about it's workings, why is that useful?

    It's useful because it not only allow more robust systems, but also allows various other "optimisations".

    This idea of (bad) side-effect free permeates most of modern day computing. For example, at the macro-level, we have Operating Systems with protected memory systems, privilege levels, etc, which then allows robust multi-tasking, etc.

    Moving to the micro-level, we have instruction-level parallelism, which CPU designers (at the chip, transistors level) needed in order to improve throughput [1]. Things like super-scalar, pipelining, out-of-order execution, etc, I believe, can all trace their roots back to this idea of (bad) side-effect free operations. Sure, they had to introduce a slew peripheral hardware to cache or hide the various (good and bad) side-effects, but they did it.

    Now were moving into the age where they are trying (again) to do it at the programmer level. At least, that's my take on it... Wink

    [1] The root causes for this are many. But from my perspective, the primary cause is the unwillingness of the 'industry' to move to vastly faster memory sub-systems - orders of magnitude, in some cases. (And yes, it would be extremely expensive, which is why it's not being done, considering ->). So far, they've been able to hide the huge differences between the the throughput achieveable from the various 'levels' in  the memory heirachy: register to register, register to L1 cache, register to L2 cache, etc.
  • Erik Meijer: Functional Programming

    That was an excellent video.

    As an old-school, impure programmer, I especially liked the way you cleared up what is meant by functional - in my old-school (C++) ways, I kept thinking 'volatile results'... Smiley

    One could argue, though, that your starting premise is what is wrong with regards to the 'contract' each function call has, at least in terms of adding 'functional' features to an imperative language. And I suspect Charles may have thought that as well, which is why I suspect he asked about wether it was worthwhile to be able to 'flag' a call/routine as being 'functional' - f(x) called with the same 'x' returning the same result. Always. That is, we know our (default) implementation of an (imperative) function (routine) is not pure, but look here, this function (routine) is meant to be pure, so please beef up the (static?) analysis, and tell me if this gets broken.

    Anyway, thanks Erik and Charles. Excellent... [A]
  • IE 8: On the Path to Web Standards Compliance - ACID 2 Test Pass Complete

    creditcard wrote:

    So um, how about a release?

    If IE8 releases before Firefox 3 you can deliver a fatal blow to Firefox standards complience claims.

    I think I'd prefer that it was done right, rather than release early, just to start a fight... Wink
  • ntdebugging blog talk about on desktop heap

    This is probably going off topic here, but as I don't seem to be able to get any useful response from other sources, so what the heck...

    Basically, I'm trying to avoid having to use two separate computer systems in an embedded design. The basic problem is that I need to drive a 3840x2400 pixel display. BUT, not have this high-res display actually attached to the user's "normal" Desktop. In other words, have the high-res display connected as a peripheral display. Nothing, other than my program, is allowed to draw or touch anything (dialog boxes,  blanking, etc) on this display.

    Now the problem is that nVidia, the display card manufacturer (Quadro FX), does not support operating the display without it being connected to a "Windows Desktop". My attempts to gain access to their driver people have (effectively) been ignored. Worse still, I don't have the time, and client doesn't have the resources to fund any type of driver development.

    So I've been trying to think of ways of working around this rather sticky problem - thinking about wether it was possible to create a second "Windows Desktop". Then I remembered a product that used to ship here in Australia, that turned a Windows NT4 system into an old-school Mutli-User system [1].

    Is it possible, under ANY current version of Windows that allows you to have two (or more) real users being driven entirely by one PC with Multi-Display cards, etc - ie an "old school" Multi-User system ?

    The basic idea here being wether I could setup a second user Session to run in Kiosk-mode, but rendering to the high-res display. The "normal desktop" session 0 (1 for Vista), using a lower-res display, such as a PCI SVGA display eg 1024x768.

    Any thoughts ?  ... go away ?... Wink

    [1]: There used to be a product here in Australia, which I believe was bought-out and then released as Citrix MetaFrame (WinFrame ?). That used a "Hacked" NT 3.5 / NT 4 Kernel - apparently, they had purchased a Kernel source-code license. But when it came to Windows NT4/2000, Microsoft tied them up and essentially made them enter into a cross-license arrangement, and thus was born Terminal Services.

    Anyway, the point being, that there were PCI cards, typically 4 Display with matching Keyboard and Mouse ports, that used a high denity connector, which you then broke out into separate display/keyboard/mouse "terminals" - there was nothing else but the breakout box on the user's desk (no computer). From what I can tell, this is no longer supported in either MetaFrame or Terminal Services, at least out of the box.

  • Greg Leake: Stocktrader Demo, 2 of 3

    Ah, my old friend, DCOM... [A]

    Actually, how close is the new WCF binary serialisation to DCOM's ?

    PS: I really like these types of Videos. Big Smile
View All