Entries:
Comments:
Discussions:

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

Discussions

Vesuvius vesuvius Count Orlock
  • Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

    ManipUni said:
    Sabot said:
    *snip*
    By "support" I mean a patch for [insert this weeks latest security exploit].

    Windows hasn't added enough additional features for businesses that without the threat of ending support/patches etc then people wouldn't even consider either having an EA and or upgrading.

    But typically a business network is isolated from the Internet, hence a lot of Government departments and businesses are still using Windows 2000 even though support was stopped ages ago.

    IT departments hate automatic updates, and I'm yet to come across a reputable business that just installs windows updates willy-nilly, however big the security threat is.

    It is win-win (no pun intended) because if users want the older OS, then they can just install it using their Volume Licence Key, then update when they like. After the Vista debacle, Dell offered PC's with XP on them so there is a lot of choice, people just assume that there isn't. Microsoft [naturally] won't promulgate choice whilst promoting a new OS - that stands to reason - but nowadays you can get whatever you want.

  • Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

    stevo_ said:
    Why do people talk about this like its suprising? does every other new product version in the world get instantly purchased by prior version owners? uh.. no, but do you still have to keep making new products? yes.
    I know this is a week old, but pertinent.
     

  • Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

    Player42 said:
    Heywood_J said:
    *snip*
    "If I switch to Windows 7, will my existing applications be able to do more?  Will they acquire new features?  Of course not.  So why bother with all the potential problems?"

    In my experience with the Windows 7 beta, newer applications (Office 2007, Visual Studio 2008 etc) run noticeably faster than they do on Windows XP SP3 on identical hardware. Also, there are far fewer occasions when a single application brings the rest of the system to a halt, as, for example, Outlook is prone to doing on startup.
    That is because most windows 7 installations are 12 weeks old "tops" i.e. fresh installations,  whereas some XP installations have been running for 6 or so years.

    Do a fresh install of XP for a like-for-like comparison!

  • Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

    littleguru said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*
    I'm also not a fan of the removed icons... I'm very much picture driven and scan first for icons before reading the text. Therefore it's harder for me to scan, and actually read, the buttons - compared to previous versions of Windows.

    I wonder why the icons have been removed...
    What, you mean this is easier to use?



    Too late now me thinks. Windows explorer and the Live product range have all used the credit crunch excuse.

    It is inexcusable! Who decided this was a good idea?

  • Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

    Maddus Mattus said:

    As our company is running succesfull on Vista, we will give our employees the choice wether or not to upgrade to seven.

    I will do so no matter what, because I want to be on the forefront of technology.

    As will I [upgrade that is], but there is very little forefront in Technology in windows 7. The kernel updates via Arun Kishan are great, but even the new task bar with it's jump lists etc. are still the same Win32 ListView controls all implemented via GDI drawing.

    From a Windows Forms developers, point of view, I have used ComponentFactory's controls for a project and already you have someone who has created a Windows 7 theme so I can create quite a lot of the controls in Win 7.

    What they seem to have done is taken away a lot look at this in Live mail (and Win 7)



    Apart from the new lighter theme, all they have done is remove icons. In previous versions you would have lot of icons indicating actions on the toolbar, which gives a feeling of simplicity to the toolbar now.

    Again, look at the tree view (compare it with Outlook for instance)



    They have just removed all the icons - genius!

    Now I know you guys probably think I have an "icon fetish", but whether this is an improvement is subjective I guess.

    The Glass in Windows 7 is clearer, and I don't need multitouch, especially seeing as there are no multi-touch applications available that are any good, so it all boils down to a return on investment.


  • Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

    Bas said:
    A friend of mine bought XP a couple of years ago, and last week he asked me if he should upgrade to Vista or Windows 7. I think both are better than XP, but I couldn't honestly tell him to pay more money when he won't be able to do any more than he's already able to do. I can't think of a single thing I can't do now that a new operating system would fix. I wonder what Microsoft is doing about that, and if they're not doing anything about that, if it worries them.
    What more is there left in general purpose operating systems?

    Buying my Mum a quad core machine seems wasteful. I think this is the same issue faced by business. If Office was suddenly multi-core or they would get a Silverlight application to utilise 4 cores while the OS uses the other 4 (octocore machine), then it seems to serve some function.

    It isn't just Microsoft's fault, but hardware vendors are making these many-core machines that spend 90% of the time processing email from your boss, and performing CRUD in businesses proprietary software.

    Has anyone tried Live Mail? Unlike outlook, this is lightweight, and performs its task really well. No bloat (that most home users need) so I am finding it increasingly hard to justify why someone needs a many core machine.

    If Microsoft could nail many-core on the head with an OS that used all the cores efficiently and great performance, then most people would upgrade because there are tangible benefits.

    The truth is that the software world is still playing catch-up with hardware, and the fact that there is no Pentium 5 but a Core 2 duo, is only beginning to "rear it's ugly head"

  • Win-7 migration resistance likely ?

    elmer said:
    Heywood_J said:
    *snip*

    I don't think anyone doubts any of that, it almost goes without saying (although, having said it, it clearly doesn't).

    The issue is more one of, how reliant is MS on Win7 being a big hit with their primary market - Business ?

    Businesses largely rejected Vista... despite what the dodgy figures from of Vista sales that were downgraded to XP... because it wasn't what they wanted or needed.

    Now, we have a situation where not only is business naturally resistant to change, but they also have the Vista "experience" to add to their sale objections.

    On top of that, we have a financial climate that will see budgets strongly discourage upgrades of all types.

    I recently got out of the computer selling game, having seen sales to "dependable" corporates nose-dive and crash. Business has apparently suddenly realised that the old rule of 3years for hardware no longer applies, and if you don't touch the O/S or apps, you can make them last double that.

    I guess the point the article is making (perhaps too ambitiously if you ask me) is that, having rejected Vista, we might see business jump from XP to elsewhere, rather than XP to Win7.

    I would extend this to consumers as well. I know of oodles of people still running X,P because they paid £600 (on average) or $1000 at the time. Not an astronomical amount of money, but still appreciable. If your computer still runs firefox, you can get on Facebook, do your homework, watch films and instant message your friends, why throw that away?

    What people need to understand is that XP became the first stable operating system from Microsoft, that could run all your applications and connect to the internet, with decent graphics and sound. For the vast majority of users what XP does is 90% what they need their computer to do. With Windows 98, it was a differrent story, as that couldn't resolve IP addresses in most cases, and who thought to add a password system that you could just press cancel on?

    The developed world has reached a state of saturation point with operating systems, and gone are the days where computers are like an XBox or Playstation where a new version necessitates an upgrade.

    I don't see this as a bad thing, software is not a throwaway commodity anymore, and is being engineered to last. Microsoft will need to still develop the operating system, but look more to emerging markets to maintain profitability.

  • Windows 7 RC

    Evil SEO said:
    stevo_ said:
    *snip*
    When I put a single jpg or a mp3 in a folder that has anything but music or pictures, like a downloads folder, visual studio project folder, a local website folder and Vista decides to forget all of my view settings and all of my columns with their respective sizes to set a generic pictures or music view with no turning back or ways to make it stop without deleting registry keys and unregistering system DLLs that makes the Windows 95 rev. A/B explorer look more advanced than Total Commander.

    If this really was done by design - and that would prove the shell team made one of the dumbest design decisions ever made - then Vista wouldn't remember correctly the folder settings the first days after it's been installed. It also wouldn't reset folder views when files don't change or when its dumb folder discovery doesn't find any file it recognizes (like in the C:\Windows\Installer folder where I always keep adding the Product Name column but Vista keeps forgetting) or keep resetting the folder views also after you use folder options to force the folder view settings to be the same for all same kind of folders. Whenever it was the result of a poor design decision or not it's still broken.

    The shell team did an awful job on Vista: Explorer file operations were -and some still are- unbelievably slow, folder views don't work, when you enable high DPI settings the desktop icons often change in size with each desktop refresh (at boot, when you copy files on the desktop or when a setup adds a desktop icon), you can't open the many NTFS file links that they infested your partition with for backward-compatibility, USB flashdrives often can't be ejected because explorer locks the drive not to mention the recurring crashes that plagued Vista prior to SP1 (all 100% explorer-related since Microsoft started offering hotfixes to solve them) and that they chose to put 64bit explorer as default on 64bit vista so you can say goodbye to the thumbnails of all the Nikon (NEF), Canon (CR2), Adobe (DNG) pictures (it's so useful to have a 64bit photoshop when you can't even see which image you're opening, isn't it?).
    Tell me something. Are you ever complimentary about anything?

    I know developers are a bunch of whinge bags - myself included - but you appear somewhat off the scale on the bile-ometer!

    Like here could be "tea and biscuits", or "a walk in the park with the dog", or something that isn't excoriating.

  • API Calls and XML Objects with C#

    You need Linq to XML with a good tutorial here.

    Note: the Yahoo example is using the lower level XmlDocument stuff, but linq uses XDocument so you will need to choose to learn either - and Linq of course.

    Learning the previous XML technology means you can learn the later stuff more easily, but if time is an issue, Linq is the way to go. Use XDocument included in System.XML.Linq wherever you see XmlDocument

  • Will VS2010 run on XP?

    Bass said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*
    But can you open the csproj VS2008 generates in VS2005?
    projects yes, but solutions no.