Slashdot Mirror

There's an HP box which is built around supporting Red 4k camera video; apparently it uses a single commodity video card, nothing really top-end but it can drive a 4k display and a couple of 27" 2560x1440 displays at the same time under Windows 8. Here's a link to a blog entry about it with some video.

Just to be clear, I said that WP7 [apps] won't run [unmodified] on WP8. Yes, that's correct. I still stand by the original gist of that claim.

That's misleading at best and outright false at worst. Microsoft has complied 100,000+ WP7 apps in the cloud so that they work for WP8. So from the perspective of a WP7 dev, the apps run unmodified from their end and they don't have to put any effort towards modifying their app. They DO NOT have to worry about the 35+ "breaking changes" that you quote.

Again, how different is a WP7 dev's situation with WP8 coming with the Android dev's situation with a new version coming?

http://blogs.windows.com/windows_phone/b/wpdev/archive/2012/04/05/windows-8-and-the-windows-phone-sdk-pt-2.aspx

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/windows-phone-8-whats-microsofts-developer-story/12353

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsofts-windows-phone-8-finally-gets-a-real-windows-core/12975

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-details-its-strategy-for-compiling-windows-phone-apps-in-the-cloud-7000007185/

http://www.i-programmer.info/professional-programmer/i-programmer/4402-the-astonishing-tale-of-wp8-compiling-100000-apps.html

at the same time advising readers to stay away because of the struggling App ecosystem. Good luck attracting developers that way.

The store is actually fairing very well. Since launch, the number of apps have doubled (at about 26,000 now) and is increasing at a rate of about 20% per week. Many apps have passed the million download mark. The previous link also explains that some apps have even crossed $25k in revenue, which shifts their takeaway from 60% to 80% of revenue for life. This is very attractive to developers. Further, it looks like already the Windows store is outperforming the OSX appstore, which has been open for two years, despite the fact that as of now, more people use OSX than Windows 8. The Windows store has twice as many apps, and daily download volume is 5x higher.

I think the success of the Windows store is an eventuality due to the sheer number of licenses Windows will sell just for being Windows. For the surface and other tablets, I think this is their lifeline, as their app ecosystem will increase regardless of how Surface or any other tablet sells.

From http://blogs.windows.com/windows_phone/b/wpdev/archive/2012/04/05/windows-8-and-the-windows-phone-sdk-pt-2.aspx

With regard to existing applications: today’s Windows Phone applications and games will run on the next major version of Windows Phone.

Emphasis his. So yes, XNA is supported on WP8.

The following WebKit-prefixed properties also have the same behavior in Internet Explorer 10 but require Microsoft vendor-prefixing (for example, with the prefix “-ms”) because the corresponding standards have not progressed far enough at the W3C to be unprefixed. You can read more about the Microsoft approach to this process here. Note that while you are adding the “-ms” version, you can also choose to add an unprefixed version to be forward compatible.

Nothing in the "call to action" is complaining about anything. They're just pointing out a practice that they do as well. Inflammatory headline.

Adware is heavily frowned upon by most and to have something you paid for be adware is thoroughly unacceptable.

You paid for Windows. You got Windows.

http://windows.com/

I challenge you to find the News app or Finance map listed as a Windows 8 feature.

Well to entice programmers, Microsoft just dropped the price for Developer Registration to $8 (for the next 8 days). Windows Phone Developer Blog

Fine print: Please note because this is a very limited time offer. You’ll be charged $99 USD or equivalent in your local currency, and we’ll refund the difference in the next 30 to 45 days.

XNA apps will not run

Wrong again - it seems XNA apps will work on WP8 in a 'legacy' mode.

Source

Even better, from Microsoft directly:

today’s Windows Phone applications and games will run on the next major version of Windows Phone

I looked at the web site, and I thought it _was_ an Apple announcement.

That is the metro aesthetic that Microsoft has been using in many of their web properties since the Zune HD. See: zune, kinect xbox Windows 8 bing microsoft.com

block out the Microsoft logos and it would be hard to tell the difference between that and an Apple page.

It's easy to tell the difference. Apple is still big on fake reflections, shadows, gradients, bevels, faux 3D effects like paper curling, point of view icons, etc. Metro eschews these elements in favor of bold colors, lots of white space, and simple flat iconography.

http://preview.windows.com/

so you do not need to read through a crappy blogpost.

There is a patch out there called Concurrent RDP Patcher. It will enable RDP on W7 Home as well as give you the option to allow multiple logins. I have used it on many computers and can verify that it works as expected. http://experts.windows.com/frms/windows_entertainment_and_connected_home/f/114/t/79427.aspx

you mean this: http://shell.windows.com/fileassoc/0409/xml/redir.asp?Ext=odt

.odt is the text, .odf is not the extension

What you are describing is more or less built into Windows Explorer. It's broken for odf though, the dialog that pops up sends the user here:

http://shell.windows.com/fileassoc/0409/xml/redir.asp?Ext=odf

best of luck! (I'd try it myself, but unfortunately am restricted to an inferior, unsupported, and altogether very crappy OS...

Please, compare apples to apples (no pun intended)

It would be relatively[*] the same as trying to update MS-Windows95 ... and get mad because http://update.windows.com/ is not working anymore for your MS-Windows 95.

See, both Mandrake Linux 9.0 and MS Windows 95 are "old" and unmaintained OS versions. Nevertheless, all the packaged for Mandrake 9.0 are STILL available in (at least in the principal) ftp servers, in the "old" section, for example here:
* ftp://ftp.proxad.net/pub/Distributions_Linux/Mandr ake/old/9.0

In your previous post, you said "I installed Mandrake 9 one year ago". One year ago, you had available the most current Mandrake Linux versions, that is, 10.0 and 10.1. Both versions still have their package sources found at the regular "official" section, in all of Mandrake ftp mirrors.

[*] I use Windows 95 as a comparison, as Linux develops and moves forward faster than MS-Windows. It is interesting to note that Mandrake 9.0 was released in 2002 (see http://qa.mandriva.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/Release sHistory ), and was followed by 9.1, 9.2, 10.0, 10.1, 2005LE and 2006.0 (the most current version).

Peace

What kind of system are you running OpenOffice that it is rendering the system useless until the application is loaded? Must be something crappy.

Well, Real doesn't seem to think so, it didn't set itself as the default application for *.rpm on my system. And Microsoft doesn't think so, either, judging by their display of ignorance on their internet extension database: "File Type: Unknown". (Granted, their database is often clueless when it comes to more obscure extensions, but they typically get the commercially used ones right, I think. It knows ra and rm.)

Here's a Screenshot of Mac-On-Linux which allows users of PPC enabled Linux Distros Yellow Dog Linux to run Mac OS on their computers. This ss shows a PPC Linux user with Mac OS open and Virtual PC running on it, and DOS running on Windows. Just add a few emus and you're all set.

You know what else runs Windows apps quite well? Windows.

Obviously, this "Linus Torvalds" must be some sort of superhuman to have done such a thing. But we all know that there is no such thing as a superhuman. As such it must be plain for all to see that this "Linus Torvalds" is some sort of fabrication. It is the only way to explain why Linus keeps such a low profile, and that the main bit of evidence to even suggest his existence is the testimony of his mother and the strange posts "he" makes on obscure message boards. The fact that an entire community of "warez doods" has sprung up, proclaiming that "LUNIX RULEZZZ" is such a flimsy piece of evidence it must be discounted. But if "Linus Torvalds" does not actually exist, then who has conjured up his existence? There is only one possible person who could get away with such a fraud. Mikke Torvalds, "his" supposed birth parent.

Mrs. Torvalds may have a lot to say about her son, but this does not excuse the fact that he does not exist. When you consider this, is it genuinely surprising that she found him "easy to raise"? Of course, there is one immediate objection which will no doubt be raised. "If Linus Torvalds doesn't really exist," I hear you ask, "then who wrote Linux?" That is a good question, but it is very obvious to see who. If you take a look around here for a while, you will hear names like Alan Cox, Richard Stallman, and Eric Raymond being bandied about. Obviously, it is immensely skilled coders and hackers such as these people who have made the wonderful OS Linux what it is today. The person who first made that post on comp.os.minix was in fact Linus' mother, who, frustrated by the ludicrous restrictions imposed upon her by Minix, posted a message under a partial pseudonym, asking for help building a new operating system. All she wanted was someone to help her use her PC to print out her recipes, but before she knew it she was in way over her head. Pretty soon Linux had hit 1.0 and strangers like Tanenbaum were talking about and cussing it.

Fortunately, Mikke had released the kernel under the GPL from the start, so she was able to dump it onto the shoulders of other people without arousing too much suspicion. Now she only has to make periodic appearances on Usenet and the like to avoid arousing the interest of news-hungry geeks and ZDNet reporters. "But what about the conferences?" you cry. "We have photographic evidence!" Well, that isn't Linus. Are you sure you'd like me to tell you who it is? OK. The person whom you have all been worshipping for eleven years is in fact Richard Stallman, a man simultaneously venerated and vilified by the Slashdot community. When Linux started to become famous, Mikke knew that she was in deep water and that her hoax might be uncovered, so she decided to contact the most trustworthy man in the open source world. RMS was happy to cooperate, especially when he knew that Linux had completely overwhelmed the Hurd and that he might as well help; after all, if Linux was exposed as a giant falsification, mightn't his beloved GNU project be considered a hoax also? Neither could take the chance, and for that reason Stallman was perfectly happy to quickly purchase a cheap rubber mask and shave off some of his bodily hair.

Fast forward to 2002, and GNU/Linux is very stealthily taking over the server market. Mikke Torvalds' simple request has turned into a multi-million dollar industry, and Stallman's hobby and grand vision has actually begun to come to fruition. This is why, despite the fact that Linus Torvalds is actually a figment of our collective imagination, we should all honour him for being a prime symbol of our steadfast belief and ability to do what must be done. May his memory live on forever.

Obviously, this "Linus Torvalds" must be some sort of superhuman to have done such a thing. But we all know that there is no such thing as a superhuman. As such it must be plain for all to see that this "Linus Torvalds" is some sort of fabrication. It is the only way to explain why Linus keeps such a low profile, and that the main bit of evidence to even suggest his existence is the testimony of his mother and the strange posts "he" makes on obscure message boards. The fact that an entire community of "warez doods" has sprung up, proclaiming that "LUNIX RULEZZZ" is such a flimsy piece of evidence it must be discounted. But if "Linus Torvalds" does not actually exist, then who has conjured up his existence? There is only one possible person who could get away with such a fraud. Mikke Torvalds, "his" supposed birth parent.

Mrs. Torvalds may have a lot to say about her son, but this does not excuse the fact that he does not exist. When you consider this, is it genuinely surprising that she found him "easy to raise"? Of course, there is one immediate objection which will no doubt be raised. "If Linus Torvalds doesn't really exist," I hear you ask, "then who wrote Linux?" That is a good question, but it is very obvious to see who. If you take a look around here for a while, you will hear names like Alan Cox, Richard Stallman, and Eric Raymond being bandied about. Obviously, it is immensely skilled coders and hackers such as these people who have made the wonderful OS Linux what it is today. The person who first made that post on comp.os.minix was in fact Linus' mother, who, frustrated by the ludicrous restrictions imposed upon her by Minix, posted a message under a partial pseudonym, asking for help building a new operating system. All she wanted was someone to help her use her PC to print out her recipes, but before she knew it she was in way over her head. Pretty soon Linux had hit 1.0 and strangers like Tanenbaum were talking about and cussing it.

Fortunately, Mikke had released the kernel under the GPL from the start, so she was able to dump it onto the shoulders of other people without arousing too much suspicion. Now she only has to make periodic appearances on Usenet and the like to avoid arousing the interest of news-hungry geeks and ZDNet reporters. "But what about the conferences?" you cry. "We have photographic evidence!" Well, that isn't Linus. Are you sure you'd like me to tell you who it is? OK. The person whom you have all been worshipping for eleven years is in fact Richard Stallman, a man simultaneously venerated and vilified by the Slashdot community. When Linux started to become famous, Mikke knew that she was in deep water and that her hoax might be uncovered, so she decided to contact the most trustworthy man in the open source world. RMS was happy to cooperate, especially when he knew that Linux had completely overwhelmed the Hurd and that he might as well help; after all, if Linux was exposed as a giant falsification, mightn't his beloved GNU project be considered a hoax also? Neither could take the chance, and for that reason Stallman was perfectly happy to quickly purchase a cheap rubber mask and shave off some of his bodily hair.

Fast forward to 2002, and GNU/Linux is very stealthily taking over the server market. Mikke Torvalds' simple request has turned into a multi-million dollar industry, and Stallman's hobby and grand vision has actually begun to come to fruition. This is why, despite the fact that Linus Torvalds is actually a figment of our collective imagination, we should all honour him for being a prime symbol of our steadfast belief and ability to do what must be done. May his memory live on forever.

I don't know what you're talking about. They've been selling a practically useless OS for ages!

J/K ;-)

Now should I complete the whoring and post a cut and paste?

naaa....

Slashdot it!

and if we're lucky, someone will pop around to see what happened to their server that we can tie up and grill mercilessly

Why do we jump to have the government certify our electronic devices, standards, and protocols? Why can't we merely rely on the private sector to develop sound products?

Just because you don't trust the government doesn't mean we should trust the private sector.
That's all I'm saying.

Arthur Andersen
Enron
IM Clone
Worldcom
Xerox

And just because this is Slashdot:
MS Windows

...which you can read here.

The interesting thing about this story is that it highlights the fact that nobody actually reads the MS EULA or Privacy Statements. Instead we need to wait for a journalist to make the "shock discovery" months later.

Sadly the two posters above me haven't read the article properly.

True, when searching local files and intranet, nothing about that search is sent to Microsoft.

Now, I haven't used XP, so I don't know how the Search Assistant works, but apparently you can tell it NOT to use MSN for searches, but something like Google. I don't mind Google collecting info about my searches, but I do mind when Microsoft collects info about my searches on Google - that's simply none of their business.

As a poster above me mentioned, many people in Europe have to pay for the call-time they use when surfing. Why should they have to pay a minimum of 5 cents to their ISP, just to search their own harddrive? I can't think of a single good reason for that.

Read this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30967&cid=3328 359 for a good comment on that subject.

The privacy statement for Search Assistant has the following provisions, which is what I base some of my arguments on:

http://sa.windows.com/privacy/

"No information is ever collected by Search Companion when you search your local system, LAN, or intranet for any reason."

"When you search the Internet using the Search Companion, the following information is collected regarding your use of the service: your IP address, the text of your Internet search query, grammatical information about the query, the list of tasks which the Search Companion Web service recommends, and any tasks you select from the recommendation list."

"Search Companion does not record your choice of Internet search engine, and does not collect or request any personal or demographic information. Information collected by the Search Companion cannot be used to identify you individually, and is never used in conjunction with other data sources that may contain personal data."

Now, like I said, I don't use XP, I don't know how Search Assistant works, and I probably wouldn't even use it, but it's still a bad thing to do for two reasons:

1) Making people pay their ISP/phone company to search their local harddrives.
2) IF I can make Search Assistant use another search engine (like Google), it's none of Microsofts business what I search for. If I can't use another search engine, then obviously Microsoft has to know what I'm searching for.

But what really sucks is that Slashcode's inane . link exposer for people who are too stupid to look at the bottom of their browser's window to see the URL that they're clicking on has basically ruined this joke.