Windows 7 is RC [nearly], and surely this [Windows Media Player] is to be released for Vista as well, so why not get as much testing for the product as possible?
Did someone forget to do this?
Windows is just too big for that. I think its a case of getting to the point of saying "we can live with the bugs we have", becuase telemetry will always point to issues, hence even Vista is due for SP2.Sven Groot said:PaoloM said:*snip*
I think the beta was a form of usability testing, on a major scale, they think they have it polished now, but with such a big product, people are likely to always find issues. I'm just thrilled that they have gone from beta to RC in around 12 weeks. That is some testament to a product in delevelopment for a number of years.
I have just foundffound this out and which is why I wish a service pack had been issued for IE6 to fix most of these problems. I just hate the time one wastes fixing browser issue sometimes, so far half a day and I still need to get this fixed.W3bbo said:stevo_ said:*snip*
...that won't render right in IE6 and there's nothing you can do about it other than overriding the stylesheet for IE6 and specifying a fallback image.
I'm just using the png as <img> in bog standard html. I know IE6 is dying, but a lot of business is still using it - my main target, not techies like channel 9 folks. If I were to give a client my card/web address, and they got back to their Office and are using IE6, then the site won't look good.W3bbo said:It depends, how are you trying to use the PNGs?
PNGs in <img /> elements in the document itself can be make alpha-transparent by using the filter property (which is what pretty much every script does) or wrap it in something that supports transparency, like a Flash SWF with the wmode property set to transparent.
But you won't get anywhere trying to make IE6 support alpha-transparent PNGs as a background image for a CSS box, that's impossible and only IE7+ supports it.
IE6 is dying anyway, why support it?
I'n not going to try and fix every IE6 problem on the site, but this looks like it would be a straightforward fix, and easy enough to implement.
Ditto.jamie said:when my mom dies - which i hope never happens ...then i doubt ill have a phone
everyone i know uses email or facebook - plus i have a cell phone - so i think the land line will go
Its a case of legacy technology. I get free calls after 6 and free evening and weekend calls which is helpful if you live in a house with anyone of an ovarian disposition.
Women are generally the people that are lining phone companies pockets as they can talk for 2 hours and not mention a single fact. Phones are also useful for those with a wife and female children. Kids just love to yack so you can tell them to use their cell phone minutes up wisely as parental control is essential. The rest of the time they can use the family phone.
MVC is important for the people that are developing sites using Linq to SQL and Linq to Entities. If you are using stored procedures, your logic is already decoupled, so you just wrap a web service around it, and use either a windows , wpf or asp.net web form. People are too hung up on the differences, ultimately win/wpf/web forms are just presentations layers.Dr Herbie said:stevo_ said:*snip*
Our customers still run SQLServer2000!
EDIT: That's a point - can you compile ASP.NET MVC against .NET2.0 ?
In WPF the MVVM is just a decoupled binding source. You create a class that is your ViewModel that inherits from ObservableCollection that tracks changes. In windows forms, use the binding source and your dataset (functions as ObservableCollection does i.e. tracks changes).
The key difference is that in windows forms the binding is tightly coupled (unless you use CLSA.NET stuff) but the fact that you can pass datasets from service to client, results in a superior client service/model than MVVM which is a lot of boilerplate plumbing, but something your Linq fanatics love (mapping classes to objects).
There is more than one way to skin-this-cat, some of the older techniques are far much more productive and result is less code bloat, but it depends of the type of developer you are.