Any chance at a SIMD API like mono provides? Seems like that (along with appropriate improvements on the xbox JIT) would lead to a tremendous performance boost for XNA applications, particularly when it comes to all the Vector4 and Matrix math operations involved in physics simulation.
@Dan: In the absence of PDC, will BUILD be targetting the same audience, range of topics as PDC? I'm curious because all the marketing I've seen for BUILD seems to imply that it will be entirely about developing for the new Windows 8 app model (HTML5+js) and less about languages, technology and software development in the windows ecosystem in general.
I was hoping to attend PDC again this year, but BUILD seems like it might be too App & UI centric to be of interest for me.
@tgoodhew: As an additional followup, I'm not sure I like the a'la cart pricing aproach as it fragments the sku's too much. I say cut the difference and just offer one product.
$275, with support for C#, VB.net, F#, C++/CLI, and native C++ cross-development via solutions along with MFC and ATL support, and the same plugin model as seen in Professional. It would still be missing a lot of the more advanced features such as intellitrace and parallel task debugging that are included in Professional, but would be vastly more useful than VC++ Express in its current state.
I'd also be open to Professional at a discounted price in exchange for a home-use license that wouldn't allow for deployment in a commercial environment.
@tgoodhew: I'll throw in a 4th sticking point for Express. The Express products are isolated from each other and the development experience when dealing with multiple projects that cross the managed boundary between C# C++/CLI and native C++ is a real hassle compared to how things work with the Standard and Professional versions.
Extensibility isn't as important to me from a hobbiest perspective (though I wouldn't be able to live without Incredibuild at work). But the lack of MFC is pretty appalling to me. And for these reasons combined, I called and filed a complaint when I realized that you would rather I use the under-developed free product than pay money for something you used to offer. What kind of business model is that?
My understanding of the matter is that the main motivation for cutting the Standard edition was that many businesses would still purchase the Professional version if that was the only option, but businesses were previously buying Standard because it did most of what they needed. By cutting the Standard product, companies just upgraded to Professional and that was the end of it. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this, Professional should be used professionaly, I was just somewhat taken back by the lack of licensing options for home-use and hobbiest who like to program for non-commercial purposes.
I want to give you my money, I do... But for my needs at home, Professional has more than I need, and Express doesn't have enough.
@freefly: The notable thing about the game is that it isn't some new game, its a game that was supposed to come out over a decade ago. That being said, I agree. These sorts of videos really have no place on Channel9. In the past few months I've been having a hard time finding interesting content. Every day its either, "Look at these cool new WP7 apps!" or "look at something mildly interesting someone did using the Kinect!" And generally the videos are over-produced these days as well. I miss the impromptu amateur-filmed office visits and deep-dives of yester-year.
[I bring this up because the bottom of the video was occluded by the video-playback controls]
One of my biggest complaints with IE9 is that the notification windows popup from the bottom of the page. Consequently, it takes me a long time to notice them as I type in an address at the top of the window, start reading at the top of the page, and often
will have clicked on a link and moved on before reaching the bottom of the window.
I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind this decision, but it seems silly that a feature designed to bring the user's attention to something would be implemented in such a way that it doesn't catch the user's attention!
Maybe its me, but I just feel like these two icons are far too prominent and in your face. There is something about the way they come immediately after the title and before the actual content of the post that just doesn't sit well to me
Thats kind of what I'm hoping, the DirectWrite presentation at PDC last year was great, but I was kind of disappointed with the lack of support for XP and Vista (though I understand Vista support is in the works). If .NET4's implementation of WPF exposes parts of DirectWrite, then thats great... if DirectWrite will be available to native coders on XP, even better...
DirectWrite always struck me as more of a library than an OS dependent feature. Being able to treat it like a library and use the same code path for all text rendering (even if it just falls back on GDI for XP under the covers) would have been very useful.
At any rate, its good to hear that this fix works on XP as well (though I should hopefully be running windows 7 at work by the time Dev10 is released)
So if the fuzzy font issue was fixed by changing WPF to use DirectWrite, does that mean that Visual Studio users running XP and Vista will still have to endure the blurry text?