Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

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

William Kempf wkempf
  • Windows Phone 10 is coming.

    , magicalclick wrote

    *snip*

    Wireless charging is not that great. Trust me, I had it and it is not that important. I was lucky to have Ford Escort and customized the shallow cup holder into a charging station. But, no other car can do this.

    And the wireless charging is unreliable when you need to make sure you aim good and not using the phone. But, a lot of times, I want to charge and use my phone.

    I really can't agree. Wireless charging is one feature I really don't want to give up. Being able to just throw my phone on the charger when going to bed really does make a big difference, surprisingly. And I've never once had problems with my "aim". Probably because I'm using a well designed charger: http://www.valuefind.us/p/Nokia-Dt-910-Lumia-820-920-Wireless-Charging-Stand-Black-52912289.html

    You can't really put the phone on wrong with that stand charger, and the stand means I have a convenient alarm clock beside the bed as well. As cheong says, there's less wear and tear on the USB connector as well. Despite using Qi as my primary way to charge the phone, the USB connector has still worn out to the point where I have to fiddle with the cable for quite some time before a proper connection is made now. If that was how I had to charge my phone every night, I'd go insane.

    So, if you think the charging requires accurate aim, I'd highly recommend you try a different charger.

  • Modern Skype is dead.

    @bondsbw: As usual, bad naming by Microsoft. Yes, technically it's UWP, but the marketers have been calling the "Universal Apps". Technically Universal Apps were a way to target both Win8 and WP8 through rebuilding. UWP apps on the other hand are actual more universal... they are a single binary that runs on all the various platforms... because all those platforms are "just Windows".

    And no, from a technical point of view UA is not dead. You can still use the same architecture to create "UA" applications for Windows 10. That's just not the right way to do it anymore, since UWP applications are superior from a development point of view. All I was saying was that I'm sure Skype will be written as a UWP (or as the marketers call it, a "Universal Application"), and that means the old application will be entirely replaced. For what ever unknown reason, Microsoft doesn't want to support the old application so they are prematurely forcing people to switch to the Desktop application and confusing everyone needlessly.

  • Modern Skype is dead.

    , magicalclick wrote

    @bondsbw:

    Aka, it must be so hard to update it to UA. Must be super difficult like C9 new line text editor deficiency. (took C9 almost a year and me literally starting an repeated reporting initiative to fix it).

    No, but UA apps will only run on Win10, so they'd still have to kill the "modern" app. I think they've very badly bungled the message, but I don't think Paul is correct either. The existing desktop app won't run on the phone, and there's zero chance Microsoft will abandon WP or leave Skype off of it. So there will be a UA version of Skype in the future. All I can guess is that they no the UA app will be the only app in the future, and there's some bug or security flaw in the "modern" app that they don't want to spend the resources fixing. So, killing the modern app makes sense to them. Of course, the message that sends is horrible, so they should have either waited for the UA version before killing it, or not killed it at all no matter the cost. This move really is dumb. 

  • Joe Duffy says: big year head, stay tuned

    @felix9: That's why I said similar. I don't think we want another CLR language. But a language with C#'s productivity that compiles to native, and maybe is tuned for WinRT work, and includes some of the advanced features he was working on in M#? Yeah, bring it on.

  • Joe Duffy says: big year head, stay tuned

    My guess would be M# or a similar language. One that gives you the productivity of C# but with the performance of C++. Probably designed to work very well with WinRT as well.

    Or, am I just wishing?

  • Windows to support SSH natively

    @Jim Young: Yep. Having used both, I can tell you that if I were in some mythological environment where both were fist class citizens, I'd choose PowerShell. He really is just showing his bias. There is no real answer to the question "why bash" other than "it's what I like".

  • Windows to support SSH natively

    @kettch: Because he's biased.

  • Windows to support SSH natively

    @blowdart: Wasn't claiming you'd want to. :)

  • Windows to support SSH natively

    , cheong wrote

    @Bass: Me think having SSH server without SSH tunnel would be classified as incomplete implementation.

    Tunneling, sure, but tunneling alone won't give you the ability to tunnel applications. That works for X Windows because X Windows is built on a wire protocol. I could see tunneling an RDP session, but a lot more would have to change to allow for tunneling of individual applications. I would not expect to see this capability any time soon.

  • Apparently, WMC is no longer part of Win10

    , TexasToast wrote

    I still don't understand why Microsoft does not put out just 1 more MCE release (for windows 10) and say ok that's it.  (no support or improvements)  Maybe move it to open source if that's possible with licensing.  Who made this decision and what his/hers name?

    They did... with Windows 8. That's why the angst now is more than a little misplaced. Though I do get it... there is nothing else out there quite like what we had with WMC. But, that's the thing, there's enough things out there that provide some of what WMC does that the general user finds more appealing. Cheaper and simpler solutions. Nothing that would make the hardcore WMC user happy, but far more appealing to a much wider market.

    What's really sad... even those simpler solutions, like a Roku, FireStick, TiVo, etc., aren't really hitting mass appeal. The general user seems to still want to (over) pay for cable and watch live TV only. Go figure.

    I do think making the code Open Source is a great idea, though there may be problems related to DRM and Codecs. Sure would be a cheap way to make a bunch of extremely loyal users happy, though.