The barrier-to-entry to web development used to be really low. (Once you've had access to a web server), you can script your way to a decent site. These were the ASP, PHP days. Even when you throw in database access, you can still copy+paste
your way through it.
The barrier to entry is still low - you just have to look outside the Windows World. I do this a lot, and specifically because I don't want my world view to be limited by what Microsoft wishes me to use.
How many of the *big* web-apps use Microsoft technology? I'd guess, and it is a guess, that the number is small - not that I am suggesting that either technology is better than the other, but buying into Rails or Django/Turbogears doesn't tie me into what Microsoft
thinks is right ... and doesn't try and force me into working with my designers in a certain way.
It's as if a thousand Adobe developers scream in terror and are then suddenly silenced.
Until it supports ActionScript I don't think anyone is *too* worried. Of course a XAML-SWF converter would be spectacular and allow Microsoft to take advantage of the huge installation base of Flash.
I'd always thought the SWF spec proprietary though, I'm surprised it is as open as it appears to be.
That looks like really interesting stuff, and I think I'd like to see more WS-* stuff. But how does Microsoft view
Tim Bray's criticism of WS-*? He's particularly scathing of WS-TRANSFER quoting someone as saying it is HTTP over SOAP ..
Time Bray wrote:
No matter how hard I try, I still think the WS-* stack is bloated, opaque, and insanely complex. I think it’s going to be hard to understand, hard to implement, hard to interoperate, and hard to secure. ... I look at Google and Amazon and EBay and Salesforce and see them doing tens of millions of transactions a day involving pumping XML back and forth over HTTP, and I can’t help noticing that they don’t seem to need much WS-apparatus.
Fantastic - this could be such a good way of recording archaeological sites than the current 2d photos and drawings, I am guessing the moment any archaeologists see this they will be knocking down your door - well done with that ..
ClearType is not "just" antialiasing. Watch the whole video. Do you see how ClearType uses color? That's not anti-aliasing and why it's better than the Mac's anti-aliasing scheme.
I know it is sub-pixel rendering which allows them to use the three colours in any pixel to fool your eyes into seeing the end result.
Apple knows about sub-pixel rendering (Woz believes he was using it a long time ago), unfortunately an existing patent at Microsoft means they would have to licence it and I do not believe it is clear to them that they have permission to use it after Microsoft's
investment in them.
I did make the point that it was my opinion, maybe my eyes are just screwed? I've seen cleartype at work, as you know I work on both macs and windows every day, and it is certainly crisper, but my point was that this doesn't necessarily make it easier for
*everyone* to read. I'm not dissing cleartype, I was just questioning the comment that it is the best way for everyone to read on-screen.
Also, you missed his whole point. Apple tries to make its fonts be faithful to print fonts. Microsoft tries to make its fonts readable on screen.
I didn't miss that, and I understand the point .. I like wasting paper as little as the next person, but *currently* on Windows I tend to print out word docs more than I print out docs on my mac. I admit one out of a cast of millions is not a very good metric
We have a lot of Macs at Microsoft and know its OS well
At least the Office team do - WMP on OSX is a *mess*. I pause a video and then press play and have to resize the window to see the video change - from the local disk - WTF?!? And about another dozen silly 'features'. But I don't want to turn this into an OSX
Overall I take the point that cleartype is much better technology than AAT, I just think that blanket statements about more readable than other OS is a bit silly given the difference in everybodies vision.
How does ClearType solve the issue of lack of horizontal resolution? I will get around to watching the last 30 minutes of the video .. so just tell me to stfu if it is explained further on.