Slashdot Mirror

Suggestions:

Make the page load quickly, it should be easy to read and possibly have the ability to change colours randomly or manually. Maybe have a scheme where the background is black and the text is yellow/green/white?

The top and left menus may need to be overhauled with more concise headers and more descriptive subsections.

Maybe have 2 kinds of polls, one is a fun poll and another more scientific poll? Poll on things that might matter such as preferences of computer equipment/brands/configurations? Poll on subjects that are timely and forsee future trends in the industry.

Have a bigger links section to reference guides and useful tools.

And finally, whatever you do, do not make it look like this:
http://channel9.msdn.com/

I was suprised when they made an MSN Search plugin for Firefox (http://blogs.msdn.com/msnsearch/archive/2005/09/2 9/475316.aspx) But this...

well worth a look if you can't make it there yourself.

well worth a look if you can't make it there yourself.

note that any decent compiler will turn devides and remainders using constant powers of two into bit shifts anyway.

Hopefully not always: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/05/ 27/422551.aspx

IEBlog just got updated TODAY with even more information about CSS/etc. hacks and IE7-- all web site designers should read this entry!

Organizations must be held responsible, not developers. Development is an organizational-based activity. If you're going to blame the developer, you'll also need to look at the project manager. Did the project manager rush the developer? If the project manager was rushing the developer, maybe the president oversold the product? And what about the tester, maybe they should have found security holes? The point is, software development typically isn't a solo activity. See How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?

Why aren't we supporting XHTML when it's served as the "application/xml+xhtml" media type in IE7? I made the decision to not try to support the MIME type in IE7 simply because I personally want XHTML to be successful in the long run. I love XHTML (go look, my name is in the credits for XML 1.0); it's capable of being truly interoperable if done right. With most of our platform resources in IE7 outside of security work being spent on improving our CSS support, if we tried to support real XHTML in IE 7 we would have ended up using our existing HTML parser (which is focused on compatibility) and hacking in XML constructs. It is highly unlikely we could support XHTML well in this way; in particular, we would certainly not detect a few error cases here or there, and we would silently support invalid cases. This would, of course, cause compatibility problems based on parser error handling in the future, which XML is explicitly trying to avoid; we don't want to cause another mess like the one with current HTML error handling (rooted in compatibility with earlier browsers - you can blame me for that personally somewhat, but not IE). I would much rather take the time to implement XHTML properly after IE 7, and have it be truly interoperable - but I did want to unblock deployment of XHTML as best we could, which is why we made sure to address the XML prolog/DOCTYPE issue.

  - Chris Wilson

Why should we webdevs have to tell the browser to do things right?

Well, you have to tell it what DOCTYPE we're dealing with; that's a pretty basic piece of information. This determines the box model, DOM model, and parsing logic to use when reading in the page. This isn't a big deal at all, but up until a few years ago, not a lot of sites were specifying DOCTYPE. This lead browsers to use "quirks mode", which is a mishmash of each browser's own specifications, and the actual HTML standards.

It's not _that_ difficult to code style-wise for both IE and "other" browsers (FireFox, Safari.) What gets somewhat difficult is the handling of javascript/DOM, and older browser versions in general. It would be great if everyone in the world was running the latest versions of their browser, but they typically are not.

If you read Microsoft's IEBlog, it's pretty interesting how they're going to handle these hacks in the future version of IE.

Why should we webdevs have to tell the browser to do things right?

Well, you have to tell it what DOCTYPE we're dealing with; that's a pretty basic piece of information. This determines the box model, DOM model, and parsing logic to use when reading in the page. This isn't a big deal at all, but up until a few years ago, not a lot of sites were specifying DOCTYPE. This lead browsers to use "quirks mode", which is a mishmash of each browser's own specifications, and the actual HTML standards.

It's not _that_ difficult to code style-wise for both IE and "other" browsers (FireFox, Safari.) What gets somewhat difficult is the handling of javascript/DOM, and older browser versions in general. It would be great if everyone in the world was running the latest versions of their browser, but they typically are not.

If you read Microsoft's IEBlog, it's pretty interesting how they're going to handle these hacks in the future version of IE.

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1255 84

If you watch the video at Channel 9, they mention that they only target IE.

You know perfectly well that Microsoft has a history of lockin -- embrace, extend and extinguish, etc.

Sure, but like the grandparent, I can't see how they're going to do it this time.

Here is some Word XML (nicked from the first useful Google hit)

(damn lameness filter - please check the link...)

Please look at that, then explain: just how is MS going to stop me rescuing documents from this format?

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1190 29. Interestingly, the team-members dodge a question about browser compatibility, but I will be surprised if they don't support Firefox just the way they do in start.com.

You gotta love this comment from his post about running Starcraft under VPC:

It turns out that they had just assumed that this program wouldn't run and failed it without actually testing it.

Yes folks, this is how thorough the team that does application compatibility testing at Microsoft is. (If you don't feel like clicking the link, Starcraft runs just fine, but the testing team failed it without even trying it.)

Also check out his great series on running old games under Virtual PC.

Seconded! That would give them real-world exposure to the development process, which would expose them to such things as:

diff/patch the sort of distributed development involved in open-source software does not lend itself to granting commit privileges to everybody and thus, until you earn them, you have to send patches out to a mailing list for review before being committed (meritocracy)
change logs you have to be able to describe the patch you sent out so that any other developer can understand them. It forces you to document your work before submitting it mailing lists/newsgroups whatever discussion forum the project uses, invaluable for coordination, code reviews of submitted patches and answering questions from fellow developers code reviews already briefly mentionned, but this is the best way to make sure the open-source concept works (i.e. make sure the code is seen by other eyes first) and helps improve future submissions benevolent dictators for life look that up on wikipedia for the "political organization" behind large projects use the source sometimes the best way to answer a question is to perform searches/readings of the source code and updating the documentation as necessary so the next person doesn't need to do the same work on a project you actually use it's most rewarding when you find a bug in software you use, and then fix it. You can then show your mother: "See? I made it possible to do that!" or "It no longer crashes when you do this". This is called "eating your own dogfood" use a bug tracking system fellow users of the open-source software will report bugs and it's a good opportunity to interact with your users to see if the software should (eventually) change at a lower level to accomodate them

In conclusion, it's not that you can't learn these things elsewhere, it's just that it's really easy for anybody to participate, learn and gather experience for the "real world" (tm).

Sources:
So you want to be a Windows Installer XML developer?
Single Committer Software Development
Part of Your Complete Breakfast

Is thre some similarity between these protothreads and fibers?

I just finished reading a few entries in a blog about the new interface for Office 12, and I was really, really impressed at the level of thinking that's gone into the new interface and, more importantly, the level and amount of usability tests. There's some exciting stuff there, and I bet we'll be seeing that MiniBar concept in applications for years and years to come.

(The blog is here if you're interested: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/default.aspx)

I don't know how others feel, but my impression of Microsoft is that they're always *trying* to innovate, whether or not they happen to succeed.

This is very odd. I've seen almost no comments along the lines of "Yay, native PDF support in this software that lots of people use, now maybe they'll stop emailing me bloody word docs."

Rather, there's lots of ranting about innovation, and lots of people saying that $[software] did it first. Yep, sure. I have an unpleasant revelation for you - *none* of the software industry is exactly a powerhouse of innovation. They all implement ideas that came from each other, improve them or butcher them along the way, and try to compete. OO.o may have had PDF export first, but it's UI is a bad clone of an even worse UI (Office '97). Office might be picking up PDF export pretty late in the game, but on the other hand it looks like they're working to fix the train wreck that is office suite user interfaces. Similarly, Apple and Microsoft are busy chasing each other, nicking each other's ideas, and coming up with the odd good one along the way. Arguing about who is most innovative is just not interesting. Ideas come from all the involved parties, and everybody steals them. Big deal.

To me, this just looks like MS doing something sensible, often requested by customers, and perhaps long overdue. It's beyond me why all the comments here are so overwhelmingly negative.

Slashdot isn't usually this bad, folks. What's gotten into this bunch today?

For those talking about printer-driver based PDF export, it's not that simple. Here's what I posted earlier. Summary: OS based would be nice, but a simple generic print interface would be insufficiently flexible so something more would be needed anyway. Anyway, if they built PDF export into the OS, I bet this crowd would be screaming about monopolies, bundling, and anticompetitive business practices.

I find all this pretty disappointing. There are posts on the forum thread with the new user interface screenshots that are foaming crazy, and they all prominently say "I support open source!" or rant about OSS. Yet so many folks here wonder why nobody is interested in listening when someone has something constructive and rational to say. I begin to wonder if the crazies are the loud majority, rather than the loud minority...

Unlikely. PDF import is WAY harder than export. here's an explanation I prepared earlier..

It's not that simple.

For anyone interested in reading about Avalon versus Quartz and developer reaction to it, here are a few thought-provoking links:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/t pc/f/48409524/m/182000835731
http://blogs.msdn.com/dancre/archive/2004/03/25/96 131.aspx
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/04/14/avalo nxaml_f/

Here is a link to a Channel 9 demo of Office 12 and some of the new features: http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=1147 20

uhhhh, except I'm looking at that option right now on my Firewire/USB combo device thats formatted as NTFS. In fact, all my external drives have that option selected.

Yep. The option is there, but it does not work like you think it would. Even with with "optimize for quick removal" ticked...if you are using NTFS...you NEED to stop the device before unplugging it. This thread explains it pretty well, particularly this post and this post.

uhhhh, except I'm looking at that option right now on my Firewire/USB combo device thats formatted as NTFS. In fact, all my external drives have that option selected.

Yep. The option is there, but it does not work like you think it would. Even with with "optimize for quick removal" ticked...if you are using NTFS...you NEED to stop the device before unplugging it. This thread explains it pretty well, particularly this post and this post.

uhhhh, except I'm looking at that option right now on my Firewire/USB combo device thats formatted as NTFS. In fact, all my external drives have that option selected.

Yep. The option is there, but it does not work like you think it would. Even with with "optimize for quick removal" ticked...if you are using NTFS...you NEED to stop the device before unplugging it. This thread explains it pretty well, particularly this post and this post.

I have to admit that I don't have much experience with IE, but is it really required to use ActiveX to use XMLHTTPRequest in IE? Somehow I got an impression that JavaScript is all that is required... (or ActiveX is used under the hood?)

You only have to write Javascript to use it, but that doesn't change the fact that the XMLHttpRequest object is provided by ActiveX, and if you switch off ActiveX, XMLHttpRequest stops working.

This will change in Internet Explorer 7, which implements XMLHttpRequest as a native host object in the same way as other browsers. There's some discussion of this on the IE Blog.

Check out what our team at MSFT has done: http://blogs.msdn.com/mobilepc/archive/2005/09/13/ 465593.aspx.

The real technical reason [that the PSDK no longer supports VC6] is because the later compilers and library add enhanced security. The libraries are compiled with /GS. This was not previously supported (not in VC6) but is part of our security initiatives and drive to eliminate buffer overruns. The two articles below describe the new functionality in detail. VC6 is not as secure and does not have these enhancements. XP SP2 itself was compiled with the switch which is why we see the issue start in XP SP2. Windows Server 2003 SP 1 is even more strict in it's adherence. The compilers included in the SP1 PSDK and most of the libraries comply as well and simply won't work with VC 6.

A fun read....

http://blogs.msdn.com/jeremyk/archive/2004/07/19/1 87696.aspx/

It's about an MSFT engineer tracking down a problem caused by a bug in a root kit.

You're right, the library format didn't change. The code did.

Perhaps you should take a look at one of Microsoft's research development projects. It's a kernel written in C#..

The link will take you to Code9 a place where Microsoft allows the average person to see behind the scenes. Interesting stuff and a really GREAT movie/ concept OS!

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=6830 2

Cheers

There are some more technical details on the big map of windows and the quality gates in this blog post:

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/0 8/23/455193.aspx

As for SourceSafe, I've been told that it sucks. Badly. The source control in Visual Studio Team System is meant to be an awful lot better - they're trying to compete with things like Rational ClearCase. That said, it's both pricey and a 1.0 release. It might be worth looking at, though, if you have management insisting on a Microsoft solution.

from TFA:

The GPL says that there can't be a requirement that you give credit to the author of the program... ....The GPL also says that you can't put a limitation on sublicensing IP rights.

and then later:

I know for a lot of people the GPL is sort of synonymous with "open source." .... I really don't agree with that point of view. I think it is way too restrictive.

So something that has limits of the limitations that can be enforced is too restrictive? I think he has it backwards!

--jeff++

Check this out: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=1146 80 and make sure you watch it to the end.

INSANE stuff. MSFT may have a winner with that one.

This is plain BS, if someone placed a post saying "Firefox will put Microsoft out of business because of better functionality" it will be modded down just as easely. Even if the statement "more secure, faster page loading or better functionality can be discussed, the part "put out of business" is just a clear flamebait and almost impossible.
Now about the "more features in IE7" discussion, I think this aint going to happen. Maybe in the eyes of a user does IE7 seems perfect. But for a developer IE7 (roadmap) has several shortcomings in multiple standards like XML, ecmascript, DOM, SVG and don't forget CSS. I think FF is much more in the right direction supporting these standards _correctly_ withouth 3rd party plugins like adobe svg and DOM-spy. For things there need to be a plugin, because many users don't need it by default, mozilla hands a much better development environment then IE properly ever will.
so IMHO is Mozilla Firefox or any other gecko based browser the future!

check out http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/ and compare it with FF 1.5 features

Atlas is Microsoft's entry into the suddenly-popular-even-though-it-has-been-around-fo r-7-or-more-years AJAX trend.

Atlas is a set of extensions to ASP.NET 2.0 that allows for web developers to use AJAX with little or no plumbing work on their part.

It integrates with ASP.NET extremely well and maintains the "event driven" style that ASP.NET is known for.

There is also a Channel 9 video about what Microsoft is doing on the AJAX front elsewhere.

In the current paradigm designers create non-functional art. Then programmers recreate that art in code. Being programmers and not designers they often don't really see all the details and subtleties, so this is a very difficult back and forth process. Finally the programmers create the engines behind the interface so the program can do the heavy-duty work.

The new paradigm removes that middle step. Designers develop functional art with graphical tools that are natural and familiar. Then the programmers put the engines directly behind what the designers create.

I encountered this video in an article on ArsTechnica. It is a great explanation from the Sparkle development team, complete with hands on demonstrations. Personally, I'm very excited.

Please explain to me how having the most useful features GIVEN to you on the top of the screen for the specific task you're doing is LESS intuitive than a system of pull-down menus and submenus where you go looking for (and often don't find) the feature you need.

Just because you memorized where things can be located within the menus does not mean that this is more intuitive than just being shown the possible tasks in a graphically organized, dynamic manner.

And incase nobody has seen this yet, here is video of the Office 12 GUI in action. I don't know about you, but this kind of a dynamic graphical approach seems to me to be FAR more user-friendly than a system of menu memorizations needed for previous Office verions.

Channel9 has an interview with Julie Larson-Green, who runs the Office User Experience Team. It's a 42 minute tour of the New UI and Office 12.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=1147 20

Check it out--it's got a lot more detail than the ZDNet articles.

The new Office is amazing, check out a 40 minute video of it here. The video is about 600mb, so I fully expect their servers to catch on fire once it gets slashdotted, but have at it.

Link to Channel9 coverage http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=1147 20

Link directly to video http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/5/b/65b05 191-a526-44bc-80e5-3f5399aeb162/new_julie_larson_g reen_office12_ui_2005.wmv

Read some other Microsoft blogs sometime. Either this "guy" is a real Microsoft insider, or he's spent far too much time studying the company. He's not writing about anything that isn't present on other websites, but he writes about them in more detail. Of course, there's also the fact that none of his fellow Microsoft bloggers (outside of Ballmer) seem to be saying that what he's saying isn't true. There's always a chance that this is an elaborate hoax, but I don't think the chances of that are very high. Some of these Microsoft folks would've stepped up to deny this, and wouldn't be saying nice things about mini-microsoft.

Design should be about usability, the man/machine interface, and aesthetics should be subjugated to that end.

If you would bother to check out the products (this video for example --> http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=1153 87 ) you would see that their primary goal is to allow a REAL designer to work seperately from the code jockeys to do his job, further abstracting the UI from the backend of an application.

If you have never DESIGNED a huge GUI project then you will not appreciate the huge step forward that this represents.

If you have DESIGNED a GUI of any type and can not see what a leap forward this will be, I can only assume that you are among the legions of Microsoft supporters that throng to slashdot, or you really do not know the job of a designer.

... Microsoft walks the talk.

It's not a built-in calendar. It is merely a graphical device to let you change the current system date. A lot of administrators don't want their users changing the system date willy nilly. Thus it is locked down for standard users

then why can't it give the permission denied error when the user clicks ok/apply!?! or have some kind of error in there. or something!!!

sheesh. horrible UI design.

You may be interested in this post.

1. No activex
2. Automatic updates

The nightmare IE/windows users have suffered for years is pretty much derived from these two points.

BTW, gotta love how the IE guys are adding a "new" feature to IE7:

Building on the security features released at beta 1, upcoming new features will include ActiveX Opt-in: To reduce the attack surface and give users more control over the security of their PC, most ActiveX controls (even those already installed on the machine) will be disabled by default for users browsing the Internet

I already can read the press: "IE7, with new ActiveX Opt-IN technology which protects you from the threats of the Internets"

it's amazing how they're trying to get rid of one of their major security mistakes by converting it in marketing crap. "IE7 adds activex opt-in". No, IE7 doesn't "add" that feature. It just removes/limites a already existing feature

And many are are content to keep on using Office 97 - just witness the ads MS is running comparing Office 97 users to dinosaurs.

MS seems to be just slightly aware of customers needs in data retention - especially for governments (So what's the exact wording of the law I'm supposed to be violating and what do you mean that the law is in a now unreadable version of MS-Word??). Small case in point, the City of Encinitas used to use MS-Word to publish the Municipal Code on their website - now it is posted as PDF's.