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
  • Finally taken the plunge

    Ray6 wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    

    Chinmay007 may be a troll (he's several steps up from our traditional trolls, IMO),


    I disagree with Chimnay007 on more things than we agree on,  but he is not a troll.


    At this point in time, I'm inclined to agree, which is why I said he's several steps up.  There have been a few threads he's started that are borderline, and like you I disagree with his opinions a lot, but he seems to be informed, at least.

    Ray6 wrote:


    wkempf wrote:
    
     but concern over WGA isn't nonesense.


    This is the only operating system that can stop working properly due to problems at the owner's remote server.  Although I often bang on about the lack of real innovation on the Mac side, at least I know that I'm not going to be involved in some tech lottery when I switch it on, which is why I have started recommending them over Windows again.



    At least part of my point, exactly.

  • Finally taken the plunge

    double post

  • Finally taken the plunge

    RoyalSchrubber wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    
    RoyalSchrubber wrote:
    
    Chinmay007 wrote:
    Good stuff. The only thing keeping me from upgrading to Vista is that stupid WGA crap. The price tag doesn't matter to me cause I get it for free.


    It actually takes only 2 minutes during installation and I'm sure you know that. I've legit Vista and it haven't crossed my path since I've installed Vista in January. You can simply forget that WGA is even installed. 

    Please don't troll threads with such nonsense.


    Chinmay007 may be a troll (he's several steps up from our traditional trolls, IMO), but concern over WGA isn't nonesense.  I'm a MS supporter, and I don't care for the WGA.  The fact that "it only takes 2 minutes during installation" (ONLY!?!) isn't fully accurate, and is really besides the point.  Ignoring the "philosophical" issues that people may have with it (and which are personal opinions that have as much validity as any of yours), there are technical concerns with WGA and any other anti-piracy scheme.  At best, they inconvenience the legitimate users, and at worst can actually prevent legal uses, while they don't even slow down the real pirates.  I'm a firm believer that our industry needs to stop all such practices, for the good of our customers.


    I entered key, Vista sent it to mothership for verification and it's done for ever. It's transperent to user, user don't interact with it after installation. You only got problems if you use pirated software (or if MS screws thier servers).


    It wasn't transparent to people when the WGA servers went down.

  • Finally taken the plunge

    RoyalSchrubber wrote:
    
    Chinmay007 wrote:
    Good stuff. The only thing keeping me from upgrading to Vista is that stupid WGA crap. The price tag doesn't matter to me cause I get it for free.


    It actually takes only 2 minutes during installation and I'm sure you know that. I've legit Vista and it haven't crossed my path since I've installed Vista in January. You can simply forget that WGA is even installed. 

    Please don't troll threads with such nonsense.


    Chinmay007 may be a troll (he's several steps up from our traditional trolls, IMO), but concern over WGA isn't nonesense.  I'm a MS supporter, and I don't care for the WGA.  The fact that "it only takes 2 minutes during installation" (ONLY!?!) isn't fully accurate, and is really besides the point.  Ignoring the "philosophical" issues that people may have with it (and which are personal opinions that have as much validity as any of yours), there are technical concerns with WGA and any other anti-piracy scheme.  At best, they inconvenience the legitimate users, and at worst can actually prevent legal uses, while they don't even slow down the real pirates.  I'm a firm believer that our industry needs to stop all such practices, for the good of our customers.

  • Software changes do not occur overnight!

    thumbtacks2 wrote:
    

    Tim Sneath wrote:
    To be fair, the goal of the tutorial is not to lead you through the steps to produce Outlook in the minimum number of pages, but rather to provide a comprehensive learning guide to our designer and developer tools while building a fun and useful sample.

    (And that's not to say that building an Outlook-like interface is a trivial task, either - particularly if the controls are real, working, data-bound controls. I'm sure it was significantly more work for the Outlook developers to build this code in Win32.)
    I suppose the logic here is that "in the era of 1,000+ page programming books, what's another 90 pages?"

    Out of curiousity, how hard is it to write your own WPF controls anyway?



    The first thing to learn, is that you hardly ever need to write your own controls.  Templates, styles, attached properties and markup extensions can all be used in creative ways that replace many of the reasons you'd create a custom control in other frameworks, such as WinForms.  Like I said, I've made use of ListView and GridView several times for things that would have required a DataGrid in WinForms simply by applying a little bit of styling and templating.  It's really quite amazing what you can accomplish here with out creating a custom control.

    If you do need to create a custom control, it's extremely easy.  Much easier than in WinForms where control compisiting requires a lot of grunt work and painting of controls is tedious and difficult.  In WPF, your control class cares only about functionality, since the controls are "lookless".  That's extremely easy to do.  Then you provide a default template for the control, which can easily be crafted by compositing and using builtin presentation features.

    There's a learning curve, and there's still some areas I think need some help, but in the general cases this stuff is really quite nice.

  • Software changes do not occur overnight!

    vesuvius wrote:
    

    I have been 'meddling' a little with WPF at long last, and am in all likelihood going to Echo what has been said before. As a one man band, I’m continually looking for utilities that will increase my productivity, but not at the expense of quality. It’s for this reason that I see the acquisition of controls from http://www.componentone.com/, http://www.telerik.com/, http://www.componentfactory.com/, http://xceed.com/ et al, as (this will come as a surprise) essential in the speeding up the development process.


    Personally, with WPF's lookless controls, I've found it rather unnecessary to use 3rd party controls.

    vesuvius wrote:


     After (eventually) traipsing through a tutorial at http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/06/13/wpf-hands-on-lab-build-an-outlook-2007-ui-clone.aspx I’ve come to the realisation that you’re either a designer or a programmer (shock horror). Linq may increase productivity, but this is voraciously negated by the amount of time it will take to get your UI right in Expression Blend and Visual Studio. All the companies above have little to no components that are ready (bar the lovely data grid view from Xceed – it’s simply gorgeous) . Why should I have to undertake the task of writing a scheduler (calendar) just because I need one for my app. WPF doesn’t even offer a data grid view in its present iteration, honestly?

    The vast majority of the use cases I've had for a "data grid view" have been easily worked up using ListView with a GridView and some styling.

    The productivity comes from the unbelievable data binding.  Not a designer?  Follow the M-V-VM pattern religiously and slap together an ugly UI, then let a real designer make it pretty.  Honestly, the data binding capabilities make it possible to realize a "lookless" application that can be "painted" by a designer with little effort.  Of course, the ViewModel should be designed with some UX thought up front, so I'm not advocating completely ignoring the designer until the end.

    The premise of WPF was never to eliminate the need for both developers and designers (some people do successfully wear both hats), but to make the efforts of the two seemless and more efficient.

    vesuvius wrote:



    Working through the Microsoft Acropolis projects, that is as immature as WFP (well it’s based on it). The idea though is an excellent one but the level of immaturity of WPF and the unavailability of R.A.D components from Microsoft (no data drid view) or other vendors makes this something to get excited about in a while. Just not now, that’s all!



    These technologies are brand new.  Expecting anything other than this is foolish on your part, and a rant about it is misplaced frustration.

    That said, once you can get over the incredibly large learning curve, I'm find WPF to be an incredibly exciting technology that does allow me to be very productive.

  • OWL Lives On

    *chuckles*  The web site claims a disadvantage of OWLNext is that it's OpenSource.  Great way to ensure no one will use it, making a claim like that.

  • LINQ Question

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    Error    2    Property or indexer 'AnonymousType#1.MyAnnoymousP' cannot be assigned to -- it is read only  

    Why did this became like this as we go from Beta 1 to Beta 2?

    This code generated the above error

    var q = from x in y
                 where x.d = 1
                 select new {MyAnnoymousP = x.L, x.J};

    q.MyAnnoymousP = Something;

    in beta 1 this was valid, but in Beta 2 it became ReadOnly. Why? Will this change? Is this a bug in Beta 2?

    Thnx:)





    littleguru gave a good answer, but I'd like to point out that your code above has several bugs and won't even compile.  I realize this is example code typed on the fly, so I'm not trying to be a "code cop", but until I read the answer from littleguru I couldn't even figure out what you thought was wrong. [C]

  • Moonlight is the official Silverlight ​implementat​ion for Linux!

    Chinmay007 wrote:
    
    intelman wrote:
    They should implement Silverlight at soapbox, and offer all HD resolution.


    Microsoft should really drop use of Flash altogether if they are serious about this stuff. Lets see everything interactive (sans HTML) throughout Microsoft's part of the web implemented with Silverlight/Moonlight.


    Replacing existing instances of Flash isn't productive.  However, from this point forward I'd hope Flash would be avoided.

  • Moonlight is the official Silverlight ​implementat​ion for Linux!

    Bas wrote:
    http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=339595

    Can we please keep the Silverlight posts in a single thread?  There are four of them on the first page right now.


    1.  Post police drive me nuts.

    2.  That thread, though it mentions Moonlight, is about the Silverlight release.  This thread is focusing on Moonlight.  I don't see them as identical threads.