Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Elmer elmer I'm on my very last life.
  • HTML5 sucks

    Maddus Mattus said:
    elmer said:

    I really don't like it that I have to wait for an application to load inside a browser.


    Regardless of the speed of the network. It really feels hacky.


    And Silverlight is way to slow for complicated applications. Currently I am forced to used a SL application to manage security. I don't know if it's this particular implementation, but drag 'n drop sux! It's also very sluggish when you scroll, animations are sluggish,...


    We did the same thing in HTML using jQuery and it's much more responsive.

    Yes, you're right, I should have said:


    People CAN use Silverlight on intranets for just that reason...


    I didn't mean to imply that it was necessarily the technology of choice, just because the network is fast enough... obviously that will still be dictated by the application requirements.

  • HTML5 sucks

    magicalclick said:
    JoshRoss said:

    That really has nothing to do with hardware adaptation. HTML simply cannot catch up with current hardware until someone come along and show them how a standard should push technology instead of lagging behind "horribly".


    It's the network and response time that is critical.


    HTML is a good match for the typical speeds and reliability of dial-up and dsl connections.


    Were 100mbps+ fibre connections ubiquitous, then we would be using a different “web” technology.


    People use Silverlight on intranets for just that reason... the network speed offers the opportunity.

  • HTML5 sucks

    JoshRoss said:
    brian.shapiro said:

    If the W3C wanted to do something revolutionary, it should start with removing tags rather than adding. HTML seems to be a big pile of steaming mess. If you can attach style with css, then there should be something for attaching structural annotations, like header and footer.





    Removed items:

    3.5. Absent Elements

    3.6. Absent Attributes


    Redefined Items:

    3.3. Changed Elements

    3.4. Changed attributes

  • HTML5 sucks

    brian.shapiro said:

    I simply think HTML5 is overhyped.


    As an example, the Bing design thats in the works touted as being based on HTML5, but just about everything I see there could be done today using HTML4. The most difficult thing today would be the image transforms, but thats just a gimmick. HTML5 is being used to evoke "the next generation of the web", but the most significant thing about HTML5 is just a push for standardization. Standardization of audio and video, standardization of vector formats, standardization of microdata, etc.


    Besides that, you have two big things: the canvas tag, which I'm skeptical about, and offline storage for web apps, which I'm also skeptical abuot.

    Perhaps a little bit more than that...



  • What's on your book-shelf?

    What's on your bookshelf



  • Windows Phone 7 RTM day one in Redmond ROCK FEST!!!

    CreamFilling512 said:
    elmer said:

    Pretty sure the OS cost is pretty much irrelevant.

    I thought that was pretty much what I said.


    The consumer doesn't care about the O/S cost to the OEM, they care about what they are paying and what they are getting for it.


    MS could well leave the O/S price as is, so as not to limit their future (once they've establish a sales base) but create consumer pull-through demand by offering the consumer finacial incentives to buy... be-it products, services, frequent-flyer points... whatever.

  • Windows Phone 7 RTM day one in Redmond ROCK FEST!!!

    Bass said:
    elmer said:

    I don't disagree with your four bulletpoints, but keep in mind: Android is royalty free.


    It's not just free, you don't even need Google's permission to put Android on a device. It's open source!*


    So Google wins on "Price", and they probably did this on purpose. They saw Apple doing well in placement/promotion. They saw Microsoft makes money using OEM royality deals that are per handset.  So they went with royalty-free pricing in a scorched earth strategy. To lock Microsoft (and more importantly, Bing) out of this market.


    Microsoft COULD play the same game but it's not good enough to be free, you also have to be BETTER then Android. Also consider that Microsoft might not also have the same kind of ad/service tie-ins Google can pull off to make a free product sustainable.


    Also Microsoft could do is make the price negative (give OEMs $$$ for each device they ship), but that's very unsustainable.


    Competition is awesome, anyway. In the end of the day, consumers will win. Smiley


    * You do need Google's permission for using their name in advertisements, as well as for access to the Android marketplace and some very interesting Google apps (like the GPS turn-by-turn directions that even iOS doesn't have).

    Price is a generic term.


    MS could buy themsleves market share with freebies and redeemable vouchers.


    Buy an MS phone, get a voucher for a free MS product or service.



    To that end, it doesn’t even need to be an MS product/service offer... free tickets to a Britney Spears concert is perfectly valid, if it results in a sale.


    What matters is the total price to the consumer... and they must be satisfied the MS phone offers them better value for money than the alternatives they are considering.


    While it might make some sense to try and capitalise on the area they actually do dominate in (O/S and Office) by offering Win-7 or Office deals, I would think it perhaps smarter to give the consumer options and choices, so that they can avoid lock-in to any one demographic... for some, perhaps something like a 3-year subscription to X-Box live might be attractive... whatever it takes.

  • Another MS marketing fail.  Really, wtf?

    Charles said:
    elmer said:

    It's really no different than a pep rally before a football game in the home gym.... This was a private event, not one held in a public park. The team should be able to celebrate in any way they want to in their own house. Too bad the photos were shipped to the public cloud, but in some sense, so what....


    Too bad the photos were shipped to the public cloud


    You don't think that anyone could have anticipated this happening, and that it would be used by the various media ?


    There is no such thing as a "private event" in a public company, and with such an important product release for MS (it really is their last roll of the dice) this is last thing that MS should be allowing.


    Get the product right, get the pricing right, get the sales on the board... THEN celebrate.

  • Windows Phone 7 RTM day one in Redmond ROCK FEST!!!

    vesuvius said:
    elmer said:

    So where does WP7 slot in? That is my concern.  What is it that it has that others do not that make it a compelling purchase?

    Exactly... MS are not going to out-feature iPhone or Android, and they sure as hell are not going to out promote Apple, but they can buy themselves market-share by subsidising the pricing to make it an attractive option for those who would otherwise buy a cheaper feature-phone.

  • Windows Phone 7 RTM day one in Redmond ROCK FEST!!!

    vesuvius said:
    elmer said:

    Surely that where Google Android comes in, litigation via Oracle withstanding?


    There is absolutely nothing that WP7 offers that Android does not at present, and it is aesthetically pleasing. I like the metro design, but the droids aren't exactly an eyesore. The multi-touch is fantastic, and the text rendering is gorgeous (something I'm still yet to be conviced about on Silverlight)


    Yes there is a greater developer-base for WP7, but what tools do hobbyists have to create WP7 applications?


    I think an expression blend express is long overdue, the longer a key component like that is unavailable for the bulk of developers and hobbyists, then the harder it will be to play catchup

    I believe that the Androids are actually more product than the average buyer wants, let alone needs.


    No question they are all generally excellent smart-phones, but that is an over-crowded and relatively niche market, compared to the wider feature-phone sector that Nokia excels in.