Last couple of days my techs and myself have tried installing on several systems, all fail...
Outlook flat out crashes when the social connector is installed, and the LinkedIn does not work with the 2010 shipping connector.
Sadly, the standard 'uninstall' from the control panel does not work, as it leaves the two 'socialconnector' dlls in the Office14 folder.
This needs to be addressed before a lot of non-tech users try this on, as it is not an isolated problem. As I said, we tried this with several configurations (only 32bit, etc, etc, as the sites state). I assume MS has some peeps on this, as I told my techs
to not take time to debug it out and find the problem.
Ok, you seem like a nice enough person and seem to mean well; however, the whole Core Animation argument is really off track.
If you want to look at NEW technologies instead of just exposing OS level features, you need to look beyond Core Animation and the Apple marketing my friend.
1) You act like Core Animation has been around in the Mac/OS X world forever. It was introduced a year ago with Leopard. (You and the other 'I worked at MS, but Apple is ahead of MS' poster don't seem to get that prior to leopard, getting access to even the
simple OS effects Apple created and used was a freaking nightmare for developers prior to Leopard (and still has issues as core animation doesn't give you everything.)
2) Core Animation is not even an actual 'consistent' application or API base, it is a series of technologies stuck together, by people like yourself wrapping what Core Animation does into one 'tag line' is really wrong. It would as crazy to call all the animation
and UI technologies in Windows Vista - the WDDM system. (Understand how the WDDM is doing all the technology, but it isn't the technology?)
Core Animation is a nice marketing word, but it not much more than Apple Quartz, Quicktime and other technologies that survived the OS X years thrown in a box and given a cute name.
If you want to do a comparison; here is one area you can do it...
Prior to Scenic Animation, Vista used many animation and PS technologies that were only available to Aero/DWM of the OS.
Prior to Core Animation, many of the Apple OS level animations used were also ONLY available to OS X.
You are truly putting core animation on a pillar it does not deserve to be on, as it truly is nothing new, but just Apple opening their libraries of cute animations to developers.
Core Animation is NOT a new UI model, GUI model, API, Animation Language, etc, etc, etc....
If you want to contrast Apple and MS when it comes to GUI API technologies or even GUI designs, Core Animation would be a very sad example to begin with if you want Apple to look good.
With OS X, many of the UI technologies and APIs past QuickDraw have been a disaster and have been thrown out because of performance, not migrated and replaced with 'another attempt', had tried to hack in GPU level acceleration time and time again, only for
it to fail and be removed, and to this day, for GPU based Application animation technology, you end up in OpenGL technologies, as the basic UI of OS X and the main APIs are CPU bound with SSE optimizations.
In the end OS X is STILL using a version of Display PDF, that is equal to GDI+ of Windows 2000, and their only 'advancement' with regard to GPU usage is a Composer that uses the 3D GPU to store window textures and draw simple surfaces to the Video Card. And
even in this area, the OS X composer is ONLY Bitmap, and also is very inefficient as it does a double transfer of memory and writes when creating the onscreen image and writing it to the GPU.
Win7 and Vista has a vector composer that works with native WPF API/Vista APIs and also doesn't double write the image on every draw.
Windows also has WPF and Silverlight.
WPF is a not only a full new API set for Windows, it is a vast graphical API set that is designed around many technologies with advanced display/imaging and animation. With WPF you can draw and animation graphical concepts OS X cannot even natively display
without them being rendered to a bitmap. This is why you see press mfrs looking at XAML and WPF for their printers as it can produce results even Adobe's full featured PDF technology cannot.
This is where it becomes funny when people say Mac's are graphics computers, as I can assemble an Image using XAML that OS X cannot even display if the concept was fully translated to Adobe Illustrator or PDF and natively rendered to the OS X display without
having to bitmap render the graphical concepts.
Window's native display language (Aero/DWM/XAML) can natively render images more advanced that Adobe Illustrator can even create, let alone a graphical element produced for an OS X display in PDF or their limited Display PDF formats.
Now on to Silverlight...
Yes as you point out Silverlight is NOT WPF, but uses the WPF model of development and cross API features to deliver the MS technologies on any computer in the world via a browser, focused around MS's VC1 codecs.
Silverlight is something Apple doesn't even try to do, nor has the technology to do. - And even if they did, moving their usage of display PDF technologies from QuickDraw or Quartz would pretty much bring the hammer of Adobe down on them, as it would be competing
with Flash. (Remember Apple is still using borrowed/licensed technologies for graphics and rendering on OS X, something MS is not.)
Additionally the OS X Quartz technologies would not be fit for Silverlight type of content, or you would see Adobe using it for Flash themselves first, and they aren't even that stupid...
Basically stop glorifying Core Animation, and stop refering to it as a single technology unless you are working at Apple's marketing department, you should know better as a developer.
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.
Do you not understand anything about the NT architecture of Windows and basis of the underlying core OS design and philosophy?
In terms of the core OS, sure NT has been updated, but it also is very much as it was, and this is a testament to the strong and extensible design of the NT design architecture that is now almost 15 years old.
I think you are seeing Windows too much as the Win32/Win64 subsystem, and do not take into account or seem to realize that these are JUST subsystems running on the NT kernel architecture.
That is why there is a Win32 kernel for that subsystem but also an NT kernel that is beneath ALL subsystems. The nature of the NT architecture and the concepts of subsystems is fairly unique and why you can run a full UNIX subsystem alongside Win32 that is
a full OS implementation and not an emulation environment.
If Windows was 'not' updatable, then a new kernel technology and architecture would of had to created, instead because of the extensibility of the NT model, all these great new ideas and technologies were easily added to Windows without a core or architectural
change even being necessary.
There will come the day that the NT model does reach its limits of extensibility, but that is several years in the future, and will more of the boon of a new kernel technology that will probably have many of the NT aspects even then.
I agree that Vista is a large leap in terms of R&D implementation, but it is very much STILL built on the same OS model and concepts that NT first introduced. Go read up on NT and what is underneath Vista's subsystems, you will be surprised how strong the underlying
technologies are, have been, and how extensible these concepts developed in the early 90s are even today.
Vista has a tremendous amount of technology that is not only new but also a result of the implementation of features that have existed in NT since it was first created.
XP also had stronger security than most people expect, but for application compatibility from the 9x age where all software expected to have administrative rights, MS took the route of compatibility instead of enforcing the NT security model at the level it could have
been enforced. Vista not only enforces the NT security that has always been there, but adds to it.
Vista is about new technologies that are stacked onto the Windows architecture, in addition to changes in the architecture.
As some people have observed, a lot of the features are behind the scenes, making the sale of Vista to novices a bit harder. Just look at XP, there are tremendous advantages and new technologies it offered over Windows2000, yet you will find people that think
it is just Windows2000 with Themes for the GUI.
MS will have trouble, even as it had with XP, in explaining the extent of the new features and 'intelligence' that works in Vista, but through the showcasing of new software concepts in the next year this will become easier, as Vista will do things that no
other OS can even begin to conceptually implement.
Vista will also shine when users and non-tech journalists realize that existing applications not only run better, but significantly faster. (Take a Vector illustration application like AI or CorelDraw, they are extremely fast on Vista do to the new WDDM acceleration
However to try to sell Vista a complete new OS does not do justice to MS nor is it factual. Your assumptions about the ‘existing’ Windows code base being poorly written or non-extendible are also wrong and misleading.
Vista is full of new features, but the sound concepts and brilliant architectural concepts of the NT platform are very much still alive in Vista and at the core of making Vista what it is.
Ok, I keep seeing people refering to this as what Smartphones are for, and not fully grasping some of the use I have seen and foresee outside of just what is presented in this demonstration or apparent in the development documentation.
#1) Your Cell/Smartphone will be a 'slideshow' device as well, so instead of it 'independantly' being sync source to your inbox or appointments, it can be a direct link to your information on your PC.
#2) Also think of devices outside the normal geek range. Think Video on front of Fridge that you can use this technology to get live information from your PC in a new way. Think TV Remotes that you can use this technology along with Live technologies to check
email at a glance, remind you of something even if you are lounging in the den, or message friends without getting off the sofa to 'go to a PC'...
Smartphones are a good analogy to this type of technology, but I see them as being another 'screen' or viewpoint for this technology and an extension of a use of this technology, not a competitive format.
Just my two cents as an outsider looking in on some of the aspects.
(I used to carry a Toshiba laptop with a LCD Touchpad, it seemed like a silly idea, but once you had it, you miss even that level of functionality, so I can see good things coming from this, even if this is just the first step in a new way of thinking for mfgs
I personally have had some driver issues, but the audio quality has been worth the problems.
Vista is able to accurately produce surround and quad sound on even my 4.1 laptop, where XP only presents a stereo experience.
The fidelity is also a huge jump, sound on Vista from the same WMA or MP3 sounds incredibly better to even a non-trained ear. We even used the same speakers and comparable configuration between Vista, XP, and OSX. XP and OSX were pretty close to quality, but
Vista made both the low range and the high range speakers stand out from the other OSes...
I do have one concern of note, why is the Wave Midi samples in Vista the same from 1998? I didn't get through the entire video so I apologize if this was covered. However there is a big gap in Midi processing abilities when I can install a Roland VSC or
even a Yamaha XG software based synth that is 10 times the sample quality for instruments.
I don't expect VIsta to be full Midi synth, but the midi samples could be a lot better and also support midi after-breath, etc...