Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Announces Windows Holographic Platform

An anonymous reader writes: At its Build 2015 developer conference [Wednesday], Microsoft announced the Windows Holographic Platform. In short, the company will let developers turn Windows 10 apps into holograms for HoloLens. On stage, Microsoft showed a Windows video app that you can simply control with your voice: Just say "follow me" and the video app moves along as you walk around a room. "Every single universal Windows app has these capabilities," said Alex Kipman, technical fellow for the operating system group at Microsoft. Apps can look like little windows, or they can be more than that. The demo included a photos app, a browser, Skype, a holographic Start Menu, and even a dog on the floor.

99 comments

  1. Well... by gti_guy · · Score: 1

    Isn't that a clever use of resources!

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's awesome. This will be the next big breakthrough in computer technology, so long as they keep the price affordable.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am expecting a cure for cancer and a generation of geniuses from using this in education.

  2. Another day, another gimmick by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you're done playing, kindly place it next to the Kinect, will ya?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Another day, another gimmick by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 2

      Kinect technology is incorporated into this platform. It's what guides the orientation of the visual overlay faster and more accurately than accelerometers and orientation sensors.

    2. Re:Another day, another gimmick by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      When you're done playing, kindly place it next to the Kinect, will ya?

      HoloLense has a killer app that will draw many to it, if you think about it for a minute--it's a 4 letter word. Not sure if it would compete with VR, but it would be slightly less conspicuous.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:Another day, another gimmick by kernelistic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Golf! What a great idea!

    4. Re:Another day, another gimmick by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Golf! What a great idea!

      You got it!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Another day, another gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That all sounds like fun...

      But when I go to slap my virtual whore, and instead wind up slapping my real-life wife, I may be sleeping on the virtual couch outside in my virtual home.

  3. This is Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this.

  4. Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish the press and Microsoft would stop using the word "Hologram" when describing this. It's Virtual Reality. There are no holograms involved whatsoever.

    1. Re:Not Holograms by RevWaldo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      Wake me when they make real advances in holography, like holographic video.

      .

    2. Re:Not Holograms by Arkh89 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly, I am wondering if this qualifies as false advertising : using the name of an advanced technology that would be enabling primary functions of the product but is not actually present.

    3. Re:Not Holograms by trout007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it is technically augmented reality.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    4. Re:Not Holograms by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it's definitely a hologram. But then, so is the whole universe.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Wake me when they make real advances in holography, like holographic video.

      Why do you think that would be big advancement? It's easy enough to slap holograms into a zootrope or something similar.

    6. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its not VR either buddy.

      Its more Augmented Reality.

      There IS a difference...

    7. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually its AUGMENTED Reality.

    8. Re:Not Holograms by flarb936 · · Score: 2

      I think Microsoft may be able to get away with this on a technicality because the waveguide used in the glasses may be a holographic material. Kind of like this http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar...

      --
      ralphbarbagallo.com
    9. Re:Not Holograms by Tx · · Score: 1

      It's being augmented reality does not have any bearing on whether it is holographic or not; augmented reality means that the generated display is overlayed on the real world, so that the user sees both real and virtual objects simultaneously. This could be done with a holographic display as well as with a conventional stereoscopic display.

      Heven't seen any convincing info that Microsoft is using a light-field display in HoloLens, although they are trying to make out that they are doing something clever, but the chances are it's not actually holographic.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    10. Re:Not Holograms by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I see. Yeah there is no way it's holographic.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    11. Re:Not Holograms by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

      but the chances are it's not actually holographic.

      You can be certain about it. There is no real-time holographic display as of today. For LFDs (Light Field Display), NVidia had a prototype a few years back and it is reasonable to think that Magic Leap is pursuing something similar. Yet, I don't think the technology is mature enough to be able to generate dense light fields needed for high quality scene rendering.

    12. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that it is incorrect to call this "virtual reality" just as it is incorrect to call it "holographic." Virtual reality consists of all virtual objects. Augmented reality is a mix of real-world and virtual objects.

    13. Re:Not Holograms by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      Neither holography nor light-field-display is necessary for a goggle based device. Each retina collects photons on a surface and with a single eye you get a 2D image*. Your brain combines the images from your eyes in very complex ways to create a 3D internal model, but as far as what needs to get shined into your eyes, it's just the 2D image constructed on your retina that matters. Slightly different images to form a realtime stereogram is all that's necessary.

      (*although with one eye that moves around your brain can construct 3D models. I've known people with one eye that had very depth perception for athletic things, and have experimented a little throwing and catching with one eye and it is possible to be accurate).

    14. Re:Not Holograms by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

      Each retina collects photons on a surface and with a single eye you get a 2D image*. Your brain combines the images from your eyes in very complex ways to create a 3D internal model, but as far as what needs to get shined into your eyes, it's just the 2D image constructed on your retina that matters.

      That is incorrect. There are numerous 3D depth perception cues, among which are stereo-vision, depth of field (things far from what you are looking at appear blurry) and prior knowledge of the objects size (knowing the average size of a car, you know that if you see it "small", then it must be far away). With only one eye, the last two are perfectly valid. The very last one is very simple to reproduce but the depth of field is far from being trivial to implement. For VR head set such as the Oculus, you would need retinal tracking, map to the corresponding depth of the observed object and adapt the rendering of the whole scene to this depth of field (with of course, very small latency), see http://3dvis.optics.arizona.edu/research/research.html. Having different cues in a system can cause serious discomfort to a large portion of the population.

    15. Re:Not Holograms by mark-t · · Score: 2

      They use the word hologram to describe this because that's the word that pop culture identifies with... even though it is wrong.

      You are right, however... this no more makes holograms than a View-Master toy invented in the 60's... it just has a lot more tech behind it.

    16. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say it actually uses a prismatic light field generator that responds to both eye and head movement. If so, it actually does qualify as holographic. Holographic does not imply 'everyone in the room can see it'.

    17. Re:Not Holograms by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      There are numerous 3D depth perception cues, among which are stereo-vision,

      stereo vision is constructed in your brain from the two slightly different images on your retinas. Your brain does a lot of complicated things in constructing 3D models-- to the extent that you can have perfect refraction in both eyes and perfect retinas, but be missing half of your field of view due to neural damage in between your eyeball and your conscious brain.

      depth of field

      which is part of the 2D map of photons on your retina. I can construct a 2D image that has proper DOF cues.

      prior knowledge of the objects size

      which is also in your brain and unnecessary for a 3D display (but is necessary in the computer that constructs the images to project)

      LFD can make the job easier so you can be less vomit-inducing without retinal tracking, but it's not necessary.

    18. Re:Not Holograms by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Well played, oodaloop... well played.

    19. Re:Not Holograms by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

      I can construct a 2D image that has proper DOF cues.

      Yes, you can construct it but it your eye is still focusing on a plane and the depth cues you are feeding it (them) do not match this. If you "force" your vision on something blurry, the device better has some way to find out this and tell it to the rendering engine. Retinal tracking allows the rendering engine to know what part of the scene is observed (in the center of the FoV) which helps for finding the actual depth and focusing parameters.

      Yet, whatever tricks you use, the crystalline lens will always come back at the same position to have the in-focus image while you will perceive a change in DoF. This is another mismatch some people will perceive and there is no way to correct for it in stereo-vision. LFD might be slightly better at this but holography is the ultimate solution here.

      I don't think that a stereo-based device you can use, with discomfort, for may be one hour and before getting really nauseous will have a good commercialization potential.

    20. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. Yeah there is no way it's holographic.

      While that is true, that it does not utilize hologram technology.. IE photographic plates rendered with lasers bouncing off of a physical 3d object rendering the image of a 3d object in a reflective photographic plate illuminated with either a light or a reference laser.. or in air 3d displays in open air with no reflective medium.. like Tony Stark had in the Iron Man movies in his workshop..

      This technology does functionally the same thing, or at least it does a good job of appearing like it does.

      I have seen and thought about using good old LCD shutter glasses and a retroreflective wall, a head tracker and a couple of Kinects and some Sony Laser projectors to make the illusion of the Tony Stark .. "Jarvis" workstation by rendering the left eye and right eye fields of view on the retroreflective wall whilst using the head tracker and Kinect to determine what field of view should be rendered to each eye and would appear to be floating in space in front of the user.. and could be manipulated by hands in the open air via the Kinect.. and both that and the Microsoft augmented reality glasses.. basically could deliver the same experience.

      There are other "in open air display technologies" that involve lasers,, but are not actual "holograms" either.. more like a really high powered laser display that is of such a high power that it can create small "Pulse width modulated" bursts of plasma in the open air as pixels that are moved around at high enough speed to appear to be Rastered lines (more like dots, it is slow!) in the open air.. but the technology is expensive, low resolution and slow and not very power efficient at all.. (and probably not exactly safe in terms of not needing some sort of protective eyewear, just incase a laser hits a reflective surface and someone ends up taking it directly in the retina.)

      Check it out..

      Japanese Laser 3D Image Display

    21. Re:Not Holograms by luther349 · · Score: 1

      its not vr its augmented realty. unlike vr the real world isnt blocked from view.

    22. Re: Not Holograms by imerso · · Score: 0

      Actually, he is correct, just feeding the two eyes 2d images will give us the 3d image again. No need for all the complexity you wrote.

    23. Re:Not Holograms by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      LFD might be slightly better at this but holography is the ultimate solution here.

      Holography is much further off than practical LFD, which is further off than stereogram goggles. Realtime holographic imaging with useful performance has only become practical recently, and still only in limited applications. Realtime true holographic display is a whole different animal.

    24. Re:Not Holograms by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "There is no real-time holographic display as of today."

      If our universe turns out to be a 3D projection, I'm going to point and laugh, endlessly.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    25. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yes, you can construct it but it your eye is still focusing on a plane and the depth cues you are feeding it (them) do not match this.

      What if the view of reality is actually from cameras on the headset and projected onto the goggle's screens along with the images. The eyes would only focus on the screens while the eye parallex could be used to change the camera and image focus.

    26. Re:Not Holograms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish the press and Google would stop using the word "Android". It's an operating system. There are no robots involved whatsoever.

    27. Re:Not Holograms by quenda · · Score: 1

      Its not completely fake.
      There is a real hologram sticker on the media packaging.

  5. Doesn't replace the real thing. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    and even a dog on the floor

    "Happiness is a warm puppy." Even Charlie Brown and Lucy knew this. An image of a dog is far from the real thing. Hopefully, virtual "reality" will never replace the real thing - though with the number of people living their lives on facebook and twitter, maybe it will help drop the birthrate well below zero when the only sex most people get is cyber.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      "Happiness is a warm puppy." Even Charlie Brown and Lucy knew this. An image of a dog is far from the real thing.

      I wonder if I could put the dog on the floor, say "follow me," then put the HoloLense on my dog. I'm sure he'd have fun chasing it for a while, or at least I'd be entertained. :-D

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      "Happiness is a warm puppy."

      Or indeed anything with a bit of meat on, if you're hungry.

    3. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny
      For some reason I read that as "Happiness is a warm pussy," and found myself nodding enthusiastically in agreement.

      Maybe the cyber ones will have heaters.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    4. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That's a male you replied to.

    5. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      how can you have a birthrate below zero? if everybody stopped reproducing today, wouldn't that merely result in a birthrate of 0?

    7. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Happiness is a warm puppy." Even Charlie Brown and Lucy knew this. An image of a dog is far from the real thing.

      I wonder if I could put the dog on the floor, say "follow me," then put the HoloLense on my dog. I'm sure he'd have fun chasing it for a while, or at least I'd be entertained. :-D

      Don't count on it..

      I had an orange "Garfield" type of cat once who I loved to drive crazy with the laser pointer.. and I will never forget it.. one day it was just slightly dusty in the room and he was full on trying to get the dot and then just stopped.. and I watched his eyes slowly follow the line back to the laser pointer in my hand and he had this look on his face I will never forget.. like "You Unbelievable BASTARD!" and he was never interested in the red dot ever again for the rest of his life. That was a cat epiphany! He was unusually smart. Miss him.. a lot.. good guy. He looked like Garfield but had a cat personality more akin to Captain Kirk.. well traveled, inventive, not to be underestimated and never afraid to start a fight with other animals or people who rubbed him the wrong way.. and somehow managed to never get hurt.. but hurt others (Dogs and cats and people) to the point of needing stitches.

    8. Re:Doesn't replace the real thing. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Some animals "get it". I remember walking my dogs one night and taking out the laser pointer to get a skunk's attention. Wasn't fooling him for a second - he figured out where the beam was coming from and charged us. Good thing there was a fence between us. And it wasn't a coincidence, because he stopped when I turned it off - and started again when I turned it back on.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  6. Its for sharing perspective. by MitchellThompson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wired magazine covered it a month ago. Yep, Microsoft's new CEO is trying new things and attempting to restructure the company to be more accepting to these far-out-there ideas. Kudos. The old mantra was to only focus on core enterprise software and the Windows OS. I think the holograph idea is interesting, no doubt, but media is spinning it into "Look Microsoft bought Minecraft and they are working on a holograph system. ITS FOR GAMING!!11". No, the article I read spun it into a more mundane but useful application. Remote training / services etc. Examples were a plumber who can see your pipes and can show you in 3d what goes where... Or call up your buddy and he can help you fix your engine because he can see in 3d what you are seeing, and vice versa. This isn't VR. Its not exploring mars from the rover's perspective. Its sharing a perspective. That- is interesting.

    1. Re:Its for sharing perspective. by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 1

      > "Look Microsoft bought Minecraft and they are working on a holograph system. ITS FOR GAMING!!11". No, the article I read spun it into a more mundane but useful application.

      It can be both.

    2. Re:Its for sharing perspective. by MitchellThompson · · Score: 1

      It can be both.

      Yes, but media hype. Just sayin.

  7. Finally by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Virtual anime girlfriends* are finally here!

    * Don't worry, I'll store them in separate folders so they don't know about each other.

    1. Re:Finally by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

      * Don't worry, I'll store them in separate folders so they don't know about each other.

      If it's OK with you, I'm going to pretend they're all in the same folder.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Finally by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's hot.

    3. Re:Finally by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, I'll store them in separate folders so they don't know about each other.

      Don't forget to remove the "Everyone" group permissions.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    4. Re:Finally by hodet · · Score: 1

      chmod 700 - need to be executable as well.

    5. Re:Finally by hodet · · Score: 1

      ah damn, no Linux version

    6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And don't forget to enable the grope permissions!

    7. Re:Finally by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Virtual anime girlfriends* are finally here!

      Hows the van running Dr Krieger.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Finally by antdude · · Score: 1

      Sweet. Let me get my viruses. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do the people on the other end see? You wearing a giant contraption? Or is Microsoft going to virtualize your face to make it appear "normal"?

    1. Re:Skype by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Once everyone wears one, it's going to be "normal".

  9. What we've all been waiting for! by eyenot · · Score: 1

    I'll go right down in the basement and haul up my holographic projector, I'm sure the wife won't mind if I borrow the kids' sleep chamber cryo unit to fire up the display. After all, how can they mind since they're all holograms? Ha, ha! Clever people we are these days.

    Yes, I've been wondering when they were going to get around to building the operating system for that machine all of us ran out and bought in 1974 or whenever. I knew it was a good investment. Everybody said, "no, dude, don't buy the holographic projector, there's no O.S. for that, yet." But I just punched them in the god damned groins and ran away laughing because I'm a genius.

    I'll have to dig it out of my giant mountain of 3D glasses and virtual reality headsets and body hoists, but that will give me an opportunity to sort them all by decade. Maybe they will make an operating system for the VR things or 3D glasses next, who knows, it's Microsoft -- whose motto is, "If It's Further Away From the Command Line Then It's The Future, We Will Guarantee You That Much."

    Hopefully this return to common sense and keeping our high-tech up to date with actually running software signals that very soon Microsoft will publish the first operating system that runs entirely on teledildonics. Then we can call customer support and ask them why they're fucking us so bad!

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  10. demo video online by eples · · Score: 3, Informative

    The demo starts at 2:31:00 into the keynote video:
    https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2015/KEY01

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
    1. Re:demo video online by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Two things:

      1) We're still not seeing what a user would actually see. We're seeing solid, background-occluding objects overlaid on a camera feed. I'd like them to put a small camera inside a headset, and show us what we'd actually see if we were using it.

      2) If they ever need a new guy to do Grover's voice on Sesame Street, I know who to call.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:demo video online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically add 2 more cameras to its already 7, add eye movement, etc. The sensors already track eye movement which enables creating virtual objects in the same point in location. Basically you are not getting any additional information that already received by the cameras. No real benefit than satisfy curiosity.

  11. Productivity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember their demo of it on stage with making that little drone.
    That drone took far longer to make than it should have.
    If she had a mouse and keyboard, but still using those glasses to see it in 3D, she'd have been done in less than half the time.

    Visual gestures DO NOT WORK. They are slow and imprecise. They will ALWAYS be slow and imprecise. No amount of technology will make them better.
    No, a body suit doesn't count because that is a body suit, not a visual gesture.
    Although what I would give for a full body suit with sensation capability. Skype time just became more fun.

    Even the tech in the much-referenced Minority Report was NOT visual gestures, for crying out loud, he was clearly wearing LIT hand devices when interacting with the screen.

  12. Re:Capitalism is doomed by alvinrod · · Score: 0

    Universal Health Care has nothing to do with communism. In many countries that have universal healthcare the hospitals, clinics, and other companies supplying treatments, medical devices, etc. are still privately owned. The only difference is that the government holds a monopsony position that can keep prices more favorable for its citizens. Some even allow for otherwise free-market systems for additional or non-essential care.

    Many non-communist countries have employee or member owned businesses as well. You can bank at a credit union or buy insurance from a cooperative if you want. Just because you have a system that permits private ownership of industry does not mean that all industry must be privately owned.

    I think that most people have realized that while pure communism or socialism sounds great on paper, it doesn't actually work in the real world. Much like many other ideologies, it requires humans to behave in a way that humans don't behave so it's impossible to reach the described outcomes. Rather than try to address and fix these, proponents would seemingly rather rail against capitalism like the poster above.

  13. I bet that in 10 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... the most popular I/O devices for PCs will still be keyboard, mouse/touchpad, and monitor. Sorry, I'm not wearing a HUD all day. No chance. What we have a now is more comfortable than any possible holograms. Why moving my head, my arms, my legs, when I can interact with the computer just with my hands?

    We need to accept the idea that sometimes mankind reaches the top in a particular field, and you just cannot improve from it. Have we changed the 2K year old Latin alphabet? Not really, just a couple of letters, it's just ok as it has always been. Actually, sometimes things could get worse. Let's talk about architecture. I think Italian Renaissance buildings are just the best looking ever. Modern buildings are more energy-efficient, but they'll never look as good as those.

    So the point is: just improve what people are asking to improve. I/O devices are ok as they are. Did you see what happened to google glass...? That's what happens when you want to force IT revolutions that nobody is asking for.

    1. Re:I bet that in 10 years from now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing you may not be thinking of is that the current headset for this thing could also be upgraded with sensors to directly interface with your brainwaves- i think they have something like this now that they are using for people with vision issues\blindness and for people that are hearing impaired. So add that tech to this and you've suddenly removed the need to make gestures at all - and this current stepping stone is what leads to that tech.

  14. Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The videos imply fully opaque augmented reality on a translucent screen. Why are they lying? Why is the product not available? It makes me skeptical they have anything of value.

  15. Bravo, MS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except for the fact that this has nothing to do with holography. Either our friends at MS have yet to learn anything about holography, or else they are lying through their teeth.

  16. Re:Capitalism is doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's useless to argue. Most americans have been brainwashed by trashy TV shows since they were kids. Even cartoons (e.g., Superman, Batman) carried anti-communist messages, at least in the past.

    If you told them that the richest country in the western world is basically a government-driven economy (I'm talking about Norway, where the State controls the 5 biggest companies and 50% of the GDP through the government budget), they just wouldn't believe it and would start singing the US anthem like idiot monkeys. In the meantime, Norway's citizens enjoy standards of life, salaries and healthcare that most americans can only dream of.

    Let them get obese, alcoholic, and watch the katrashians on TV. That's what they deserve.

  17. Solution lacking a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been building buildings for thousands of years without visualization technology. The Engineers are trained how to build physical models of the structures they are planning on building. What problem does this solve? I see this more as a visualization tool for people who are not engineers, that would like a view of a job site, I.e. Middle to upper management. If that is the audience, it would be wiser to market it directly to them. If you are selling engineering software, talk up how you can import/export projects from Cad, how to perform on the fly measurements of the 3d space ect.

    1. Re:Solution lacking a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already look at this stuff in pseudo-3D on 2D monitors during the design and engineering phase, often before most of the 2D plans exist. This may be a better way to conduct walk-throughs and reviews.

  18. Rule 34 still applies by voss · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  19. Microsoft Bob is back! by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

    This time a much cooler version

    1. Re:Microsoft Bob is back! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. You didn't need to be wearing stupid goggles to use Bob. But yeah, I made the same connection when I saw this demo: It's Bob, in threeee deeeeeeee! There's even a virtual yellow dog.

  20. Actually there kind of are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From how the technology is described, it sounds like they might actually be doing light-field reconstruction, which is what holography is all about:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

    http://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/

  21. sounds like wonderful technology.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About as useful as those talking coca cola machines in the 80s..

    -db

  22. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't think of a reason that I would want an app to follow me around, but I bet that Big Brother can :-(

  23. Re:Capitalism is doomed by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 0

    Let them get obese, alcoholic, and watch the katrashians on TV. That's what they deserve.

    Isn't that a little harsh? I mean I cringed when the tortured Picard, but they did eventually release Bajor back to its rightful owners.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  24. Google Glass hype ran its course by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Time for next over-hyped technology.

  25. Thanks for the nightmares by Atrox666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    All I can think of is an irritating holographic paperclip..stalking me.

  26. Wow! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Reality catches up. I had a nightmare once, where Microsoft Clippy and Bob were following me around.

  27. Invent: by PyroGX · · Score: 1

    Invent Holoemitters.

  28. Re: Capitalism is doomed by losfromla · · Score: 0

    Animal Farm was propaganda designed to make you think exactly that. Why do you think it was deemed a "classic" and required reading for the smart kids? I'll tell you why, so they could all think alike and line up when more kool-aid was offered.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  29. Re: Capitalism is doomed by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even Marx himself predicted that a necessary period of transition from Capitalism to Communism would be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". We can all debate the niceties of Marxism, but the fact was that its formulator and primary theorist believed that the people would need to be "shepherded" to the Utopian Marxist society.

    The real problem for Communism is that the industrialized countries never bit. There were a few abortive revolutions in the mid-19th century, but the leadership of these countries were smart enough to recognize that political liberalization was the antidote to a restive working class. Most countries saw enfranchisement of larger numbers of people, increasing influence of legislative assemblies, and a more populist approach to government.

    That's why the only countries that actually grasped on to Communism were primarily agrarian states like Russia, China and Cuba. In pure Marxist theory, agrarian states have not developed to the point where they are ready for the Communist revolution. That's why you have offshoots like Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and the like, all offshoots required to explain why economies dominated by agrarian workers should skip the whole mercantilism/capitalism stage and go straight to Communism.

    My personal feeling is that Communism, like other Utopian socio-political and economic ideologies like the various strains of Anarchism and Libertarianism, are impossible to implement. Anyone attempting to will have to make so many compromises that the ideology itself becomes compromised.

    That's not to say Marxism doesn't have its uses. Certainly Marx's insistence on history being seen through the lens of economics was critical to the transition of that entire branch of academia from political narratives to a more comprehensive view of the functioning and interactions of historical societies and events. But as a socio-economic and political model, it's a flop. It can't be implemented without dictatorship, and as we've seen so many times, once the dictators gain the power to effect the Communist transformation, they are so corrupted by that power that they actively kill the revolution themselves.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  30. Re:Capitalism is doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    modded +1 WTF?

  31. Re: Capitalism is doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Animal Farm was propaganda designed to make you think exactly that. Why do you think it was deemed a "classic" and required reading for the smart kids? I'll tell you why, so they could all think alike and line up when more kool-aid was offered.

    There is nothing more adorable than naivety wearing cynicism's clothing.

  32. Re:Capitalism is doomed by phyruxus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  33. They're bringing back the start menu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all.