it is sad to see him go. He is retiring after Vista ships.
I wanted to see how MS will solve Multi-Core problems and concurrency without locks.
Oct 26, 2006 at 12:14PM
Are there plans to include in the .NET Framework, classes and support for Audio and Video? Like capturing and recording audio from your microphone and be able to stream that, or capturing live feed from your camera? Is there a plan for this to happen with in the .NET Framework? It would make it easier for developers to include video into their app, or allow live support using a mic.
In general is there a way to make it easier to work with hardware in the machine through the .NET Framework?
Oct 24, 2006 at 8:50PMNice interview. Very Cool Indeed. Its really nice to see soma back in C9, and to update us about what is going on.
Keep it up.
One question to the team. Why is switching between tabs in IE7 slower than in FireFox? i mean Switching between one tab to another should be very super fast. But in RC3 its slow. Can you explain?
The Advancement of Windows: Ales Holecek - Windows Shell (Windows Explorer, Desktop Search, UAC, AerOct 13, 2006 at 10:08AMjsampsonPC wrote:
Massif wrote: ...I defend my statement, Theorys are establish by everyone failing to disprove them. Your "I could make desks move with my mind" theory would last a very short time, scant seconds after someone says "prove it"...
You just proved my point. A theory isn't established simply because somebody cannot disprove it - and you demonstrated that when you said "Prove it". A theory is established not for fighting off critics, but for affirming, or explaining something. So you cannot say, "Theorys are established by everyone failing to dispove them", and then counter my claim that I can float desks by saing, "Prove it". Because by your own words, I dont have to prove it, you how to disprove it. And if you can't, then the theory that I can float desks is possible. But that is nonsense, of course
I think what he meant was to show that your theory 1) explains the phenomenon. 2) Is able to make solid predictions with respect to different situations and outcomes. 3) That no situation is brought forth, that demonstrates that the theory fails to explain the observable set of circumstances. The terminology is important, when you demonstrate that the theory fits 1 and 2 it does not mean you proved it. It means you postulated an educated guess, that explains the main aspects of a phenomenon, and also if its a good theory, would predict correctly new outcomes under different situations, and that no situation existed yet, that would show the postulated educated guess is false (a situation where the theory has to be updated , discarded, or refined so as to explain the new situation under which it failed as written). So Massif is correct.
To get more on this, read the about scientific method (Hypothesis,Theories,Laws).
The Advancement of Windows: Ales Holecek - Windows Shell (Windows Explorer, Desktop Search, UAC, AerOct 13, 2006 at 9:52AMstaceyw wrote:
I gather from this video, that MS went to the direction of writing new OS (VISTA), because the current model in XP and 2003, is unupdatable, because the code base is old and is not organized in a way to allow for future improvements. SO when he said that Vista is "a mile stone for us", he meant that Vista will be a new platform OS that will enable them to move to the future without the strings that were in the previous implementations of things in XP and 2003.
So when Windows Vienna comes, its going to be breath-taking. That is why I am not so much excited about vista, but about what is going to come after vista as a progress ontop of the new foundations that were implemented into Vista. That is why I compare this stage as going from DOS to Win95.
I am not following you here. AFAICT, Vista has a ton of new improvements and brand new features, but it is not a total rewrite of Server 2003R2 from scratch (check me on this Charles). You still have win32 and existing core and code bases. It would be interesting to get a Swag on percent of new code and percent of code that has changed. Maybe an easier number is what percent of 2003 has *not changed?
I am also going to enjoy the new lock primitives in Vista, such a Reader/Writer locks, Condition variables, Lazy-init, Improved Thread Pool, new InterlockedXXX functions, and application deadlock detection apis. When you start adding all the stuff up, there is a ton of hard-core goodness going into this product (this is the very hard-work stuff you don't really see).
Its totally new. written from scratch, or in some cases some win32 were replicated in new code. Old code was archived for the most part. So its totally new OS. Just like Going from DOS to 95 with new implementations. That is my information that I have. Its like rewriting win32 (preserve the APIs and features, but different implementation in code to fit in with the rest of the stuff).
Backward compatibility is one hindering factor. If we can get rid of backward compatibility all together, things would be more bright. I am all for having people who have old apps to stay on XP, and Vista would require rewrite of those apps to run. Then we go from there as a fresh start. But I guess its the promise of MS to its customers that make this backward compatibility appear in every new release of the OS.
The Advancement of Windows: Ales Holecek - Windows Shell (Windows Explorer, Desktop Search, UAC, AerOct 13, 2006 at 9:42AMMassif wrote:
jsampsonPC wrote: Massif wrote: ...Theorys are established not by proof, but by everyone failing to disprove them.
That's not entirely true either. If it were, I could invent ideas all day and have you busy disproving them, or trying to. I could claim that with my mind I can make desks float around the room, and if you spent the next 30 years trying to disprove that, that wouldn't mean that my theory has any credibility.
It comes down to probability too. For instance, in math we have infinite theorems such as "All even numbers will be divisible by 2". Now, I cannot prove that...why? Because I have not tried every possible even number to see if it is indeed divisible by two. But, the probability is so astronomically high that this is considered a fact.
A theory doesn't get accepted just on the fact that it's been around for a while - it's got to demonstrate its predictive power to the masses.
Ok, for a start - in Maths theorys can be proven. Maths isn't a science per se. it's a branch of logic. As such it is constructed of a limited set of concrete rules, and things can be proven absolutely true one way or another. (But never EVER are they proven empirically. Fermat's last theorem had empirical-ish proofs which went up to hugely large numbers, but it wasn't considered proven until a general proof was established.)
I defend my statement, Theorys are establish by everyone failing to disprove them. Your "I could make desks move with my mind" theory would last a very short time, scant seconds after someone says "prove it".
Now your last sentence is much much more relevant. In science, the measure of how good a theory is comes down to two things: "Does it explain what we already know better than the current theory?" and "Does it predict something new?"
The second part is crucial, as that's where theories derive their strength. If a new theory is simply made to fit the facts, and doesn't provide any new predictions it's considered a rubbish theory. The best theories create weird new predicitions, (like Quantum Mechanics did - really crazy predictions about certain things.) that would be really easy to prove wrong. It's simply that no-one has which means they've been accepted.
As a quick example, Einstein's general relativity predicited that the position of the stars would appear to change when the sun was near them. Now you had to have a solar eclipse to see the stars, because he said they'd be the ones really near the sun. But still, a pretty easy theory to shoot holes in - "the stars move! you're mad!" And yet when they measured it, he was right - General Relativity had its first proof and the rest is History (and Gravity, and Space as well! Boom boom!)
Agreed. Even in Mathematical theories, the Pythagorean Theory, is a theory because no one brought forth a demonstration that will show its false, like having a right-angeled triangle where the sum of the squares of 2 sides does not equal to the square of the hypotenuse. If there is such an example then that thoery is demonstrated to fail, demonstrated to be false.
So Massif is correct with respect to the scientific terminology as well as logic of it as it pertains to the scientific process.
The Advancement of Windows: Ales Holecek - Windows Shell (Windows Explorer, Desktop Search, UAC, AerOct 13, 2006 at 2:07AMMassif wrote:That's pretty much my understanding of Laws, although I'm a little wooly on Laws.
If memory serves, Laws also have to be consistent under all conditions. i.e. if some set of values (the mass of two bodies, and their seperation for example) then some other effect (the gravitational attraction between them) is always the same.
But you still can't (logically) prove anything empirically. Seriously, in fact it's nigh-on impossible to (logically) prove anything at all, in terms of real world behaviour. (The most "proven" set of laws in Physics is called Quantum-Electro Dynamics, and even then they're only 99.9999999% (can't remember the exact numbers) sure it's true.)
If you want to dispute that, then go and read a really good book called "What is this thing called science?" I think the author is called Alan Chambers, but I could be wrong. It'll show you that in actual fact Theorys are established not by proof, but by everyone failing to disprove them.
Agreed. Though in the case of Quantum-Electro Dynamics, or in general Quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, makes it impossbile for us to generate reliable measurements, much less formulate theories. Its like walking on unstable grounds and trying to measure the speed of falling objects. So ya I agree completely that in science, we never say this is proven, we say that this failed to be disproven, or no reliable demonstration succeeded to render a theory or even a hypothesis false, yet.