I agree that it appears that one of the main reasons for MTS/COM+ existence was to assist VB COM. Automation was never pretty, and I'm glad I don't live in that world anymore. (I've never been a fan of Classic VB, and have luckily been able to avoid it, although I did find myself producing more VBScript than I care to remember when automating some systems back in 1999.) For my taste, VB.NET isn't any better -- C# does just fine for me. I also think porting VB code to VB.NET is a waste of time -- just run the VB code under vbrun, and do new development in VB.NET, if you are so inclinded. It's not like I took my millions of lines of C/C++ code and ported them to C# when I adopted C# as my primary language.
I'm well versed in Mary's article. I had the good fortune to speak with Mary several times back in those days (not that she would remember -- she had become the unoffical spokesperson and was giving rpesentations all of the time). I was not referencing her article, however, I was referencing some Power Point presentations which I've kept around, and Lord knows if I'm allowed to share them (probably not). In them, I can see VC++ code WITH ATTRIBUTES, and this was in the VC6 days. Note that this version of the language NEVER SHIPPED, and primary development was moved over to Cool. The attributes in the sample code were mainly MTS-centric, which makes sense given the MSFT mindset at the time -- make developers more productive in a COM+MTS-activation world.
It was THAT language, plus some new COM stuff, plus "the compiler hooked into the 'object repository'" thingy that thankfully never became anything (well, I guess the GAC is a whisper of that) which was, on these slides, labelled as COM+ 2.0.
At the time, it looked interesting and even somewhat promising, but when the 'proper' NGWS and C# came about, I felt glad that Microsoft had course corrected. (And I have a particularly warm feeling about it today, considering I ship software which runs 6 figures a copy and it's 99.99% managed code -- and to be 100% managed under.NET 2.0.)
I don't want to sound too much like a MSFT fan-boy, but I've been more productive with C# and.NET than I have been on any other platform (and I started back in 1976, so I've used a lot of them -- TRS-80, CP/M, DOS, VAX VMS, Ultrix, SunOS, Solaris, Mac, Linux, BSD, IRIX, AS/400, Windows, etc., and I've been through my share of langauges, too, including BASIC, assembler, APL, Lisp, C++ (via cfront, no less) Prolog, Java, etc.) For me, it's not the perfect development platform, just the best. (And today we did our first run of our.NET app under OS X, thank you project Mono!).NET has it's place, and it just happens to be the place were I am at today. (3 years ago I was deep in Java land, loved it at the time, yet now hate when I have to return because of the differences between C#/CLR and Java/JVM. For me, the.NET environment is a little more 'natural'. Three years from now I could easily be in a completely different place, and cringe at the thought of a return to the.NET universe.)
There are a LOT of classes in the framework (many 1000's), but I only roughly count 800 which are sealed (which is the word you for which you were looking.)
I see similar percentages in Java.
Additionally, languages such as C# make it fairly easy to extend non-sealed classes which were not explicitly made extendable (i.e. not marked virtual) with the 'new' modifier on a method.
public class MyExtension : BaseWithOutVirtuals {
public new int Foo(string bar) {...} }
I'm not defending Grimes, because I honestly think he's lost his mind, but I'm looking at some of my very old Powerpoints when I, too, was involved in the very early (pre) betas, and, sure enough, there it is: COM+ 2.0.
In fact, I see COM+ 2.0 far more than COM3, prior to the change to NGWS.
Looking back further still, the original COM+ was more like COM+ 2.0 (with attributed-based programming extensions to C++, no less), but that got scaled back and the shipping version of COM+ was more akin to COM+MTS.
In WinForms, you'll have to go "out" to Win32 and do it yourself to get many things done.
Have some examples to share? From real-world applications that you have developed? I don't want to see some contrived BS.
I ask because I've been working on many, many (complex) WinForms apps for a few years now, and I can hardly recall ever calling out to Win32 directly. Maybe ONCE for some very custom icon drawing in a bizarre TreeView I was crafting. (And which I believe I could accomplish without P/Invoke in.NET 2.0.)
Because they don't legally have the option to run it under Wine. The MS Office for Windows EULA states that it may only be run under Microsoft operating systems.
If that person doesn't like the EULA, they should use something else, like oo.org.
That may be true for a cheap (sub $500) direct-view LCD TV, but any modern, large screen LCD TV will not exhibit this problem.
I've had a Sony LCD rear projection for a few years now, and I've never seen any kind of bluring. And as Sony is about to release the 5th generation of this TV, I'd say the problem has been fixed for a reasonably long time.
Even when I'm play Halo 2, there is absolutely no blurring; it should be easy to find an LCD TV > $2500 that doesn't blur. I have not done a lot of research in the $1500 range, so I cannot claim to be sure about those TVs.
Re:Maybe they need to get voice sussed out first
on
The Other VoIP
·
· Score: 1
I will say that I've noticed that fax-over-Vonage has dramatically improved over the past month. I've been doing 8-10 page faxes (both coming and going) without incident, whereas this past summer a successful 3 page fax was a miracle.
Actually, it's a limitation of the image program the person is using. Win2K and it's offspring (XP) can make use of lots of address space (read: >4GB). But, it's neither easy nor automatic. The OS will 'automatically' let each process have up to 4GB of address space (well, 2GB by default and 3GB with the right switches so the OS can have the other 1GB for its uses) (and you cannot allocate one contiguous 3GB block due to some, um, old issues), but using AWE (Address Windowing Extensions), you can basically augment your program with a paging mechanism which will give you 64-bit addressing. (But you need to page in and out of thar 64-bit space into your process' 32-bit space.) Oh, and if you want to access more RAM than 4GB from a single process, you'd need to use PAE (if your system supports it).
Read Raymond Chen's August 2004 blog entries (http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/archive/2004/0 8.aspx) if you really care about any of this.
I agree -- it's most unfortunate that they pulled it, as I also thought it was the best new feature. But, like I said, if you want the feature, it can be 'put back in'...instructions abound.
Interestingly, XP SP2 has a very significant update: out-of-the-box support for multiple simultaneous users, via the local console and/or remote desktop.
I'd use mod points, but there is no "uninformative" choice.
XP SP2 has no such feature! Granted, early betas of SP2 did have this feature, but it disappeared at least 6 month ago. This feature may live on in XP Media Center Edition 2004, as I hear it may be used to handle some multi-room a/v features, but it is certainly not a feature of XP Home SP2 or XP Professional SP2.
Now, if you really want this feature, you can mix and match an early beta version of one of the terminal server dll's with some registry and group policy changes, and get this to work, but you'd be violating the EULA if you did so. [Instructions are just a google away...]
Ummm...the compilers have been around for free for many years as part of the free platform sdk download. But I agree that other free IDEs have put pressure on MSFT to release these free tools.
MSFT has not committed to keeping these "community" tools free forever, either.
But it's unfair to say that non-free MSFT IDE's "cost a fortune" -- the single-language, non-enterprise versions have been in the $100 range for a long time.
It runs under the account of the user who installed the program -- so, as has been said, if Google Desktop Search found something, the user already had access to the same data.
Sadly, GDS doesn't seem to be able to install multiple web servers on different ports, so each individual log in can have their own index. The first userid to install GDS gets to use it, and no one else.
Well, what about something like Oracle JDeveloper? Here's a very complete and modern GUI IDE, written in Java, which runs unaltered on many operating systems.
Maybe you can't find it on the shelf at a retail computer store, but it is a for-purchase product. (Free to download and play with, of course.)
Perhaps a Troll, but he didn't say he wrote the HTML for the controls. Some of the ASP.NET controls don't always play nice in other browsers (but most of them do).
I don't see that other posting -- do you mean the AC posting about client-side validation? Depending upon the version of Moz and if javaScript is turned on and yadda yadda, yes, I agree that the built-in controls don't always work. But the vast majority of them do, and the ones that don't can be easily fixed to work with particular browser versions.
The client-side activation work fine with FireFox, but if I remember correctly it's because with FireFox is simply becomes a round-trip postback with server-side validation.
(Of course, all of the controls ultimately do a server-side validation, for those who are wondering. The client-side validation is just to make the interface more responive and prettier.)
I do a ton fo ASP.NET work, and it all runs just fine in FireFox (that's one of the points of ASP.NET -- browser-independent controls).
The only time I use IE in development is when I want an integrated browser/server debugging session. But, otherwise, at our ASP.NET shop, EVERYONE runs FireFox.
True, MSFT stopped gving out OPTIONS, but you seemed to have ignored the fact that they now give out STOCK -- you don't have to wait for it to 'vest'. Some would says that's a whole lot better, and it at least appears to give a clearer picture on the books, because the effect is reflected immediately.
I've had problems with some hotfixes wanting to be applied over-and-over again; don't remember if 833732 was one of them.
In any event, the problem often resulted from a customization I had made to Windows. In particular, if I had moved some system files to a new location (e.g. dllcache). Normally, this isn't a problem -- you just make some registry changes to point to the new location, copy the files, etc. But I've come to find that some hotfixes (which, as Microsoft states, often have not been through a full regression test) are hard-coded to things like the C: drive. So, they blindly look in C:\Windows\System32 for the updates files, don't find them, and indicate an update is required.
Now, more oddly still, often the patch updates in the correct location -- i.e. where the registry says the files should be.
So, you return to Windows Updates, and the C:\Windows\System32 files are still out-of-date (because the update was applied to the correct files), and you are told you need to apply the patch.
Rinse. Repeat.
Now, if this is your problem, there is a good chance that you are patched. But, who knows? It sure doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling to be told to apply the patch over-and-over again.
Whenever Windows Update applies a patch, it does generate a log file. You can try to scan the log file to see what it's doing and look for errors. That's how I determined the cause of my problem. My solution was to copy the patched files into the hard-coded directory, even though I never run those copies. A symlink would probably be a better choice...
(If you've never edited your registry to move files, maybe you've used something like TweakUI? Can cause the same problem, for the same reasons.)
Licensing is for physical processors only. So, even today, if you have 2 physical CPUs with hyperthreading, you are compliant. Task Manager will show 4 CPUs, but the OS can determine that only 2 are physical.
I suspect, however, that a dual-core CPU will be treated as 2 physical cpus...(+2 virtual CPUs)
Re:I remember using Webcrawler before google...
on
WebCrawler Turns 10 Today
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You are remembering raging.com, still up-and-running today.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it appears that one of the main reasons for MTS/COM+ existence was to assist VB COM. Automation was never pretty, and I'm glad I don't live in that world anymore. (I've never been a fan of Classic VB, and have luckily been able to avoid it, although I did find myself producing more VBScript than I care to remember when automating some systems back in 1999.) For my taste, VB.NET isn't any better -- C# does just fine for me. I also think porting VB code to VB.NET is a waste of time -- just run the VB code under vbrun, and do new development in VB.NET, if you are so inclinded. It's not like I took my millions of lines of C/C++ code and ported them to C# when I adopted C# as my primary language.
.NET 2.0.)
.NET than I have been on any other platform (and I started back in 1976, so I've used a lot of them -- TRS-80, CP/M, DOS, VAX VMS, Ultrix, SunOS, Solaris, Mac, Linux, BSD, IRIX, AS/400, Windows, etc., and I've been through my share of langauges, too, including BASIC, assembler, APL, Lisp, C++ (via cfront, no less) Prolog, Java, etc.) For me, it's not the perfect development platform, just the best. (And today we did our first run of our .NET app under OS X, thank you project Mono!) .NET has it's place, and it just happens to be the place were I am at today. (3 years ago I was deep in Java land, loved it at the time, yet now hate when I have to return because of the differences between C#/CLR and Java/JVM. For me, the .NET environment is a little more 'natural'. Three years from now I could easily be in a completely different place, and cringe at the thought of a return to the .NET universe.)
I'm well versed in Mary's article. I had the good fortune to speak with Mary several times back in those days (not that she would remember -- she had become the unoffical spokesperson and was giving rpesentations all of the time). I was not referencing her article, however, I was referencing some Power Point presentations which I've kept around, and Lord knows if I'm allowed to share them (probably not). In them, I can see VC++ code WITH ATTRIBUTES, and this was in the VC6 days. Note that this version of the language NEVER SHIPPED, and primary development was moved over to Cool. The attributes in the sample code were mainly MTS-centric, which makes sense given the MSFT mindset at the time -- make developers more productive in a COM+MTS-activation world.
It was THAT language, plus some new COM stuff, plus "the compiler hooked into the 'object repository'" thingy that thankfully never became anything (well, I guess the GAC is a whisper of that) which was, on these slides, labelled as COM+ 2.0.
At the time, it looked interesting and even somewhat promising, but when the 'proper' NGWS and C# came about, I felt glad that Microsoft had course corrected. (And I have a particularly warm feeling about it today, considering I ship software which runs 6 figures a copy and it's 99.99% managed code -- and to be 100% managed under
I don't want to sound too much like a MSFT fan-boy, but I've been more productive with C# and
There are a LOT of classes in the framework (many 1000's), but I only roughly count 800 which are sealed (which is the word you for which you were looking.)
I see similar percentages in Java.
Additionally, languages such as C# make it fairly easy to extend non-sealed classes which were not explicitly made extendable (i.e. not marked virtual) with the 'new' modifier on a method.
I'm not defending Grimes, because I honestly think he's lost his mind, but I'm looking at some of my very old Powerpoints when I, too, was involved in the very early (pre) betas, and, sure enough, there it is: COM+ 2.0.
In fact, I see COM+ 2.0 far more than COM3, prior to the change to NGWS.
Looking back further still, the original COM+ was more like COM+ 2.0 (with attributed-based programming extensions to C++, no less), but that got scaled back and the shipping version of COM+ was more akin to COM+MTS.
In WinForms, you'll have to go "out" to Win32 and do it yourself to get many things done.
.NET 2.0.)
Have some examples to share? From real-world applications that you have developed? I don't want to see some contrived BS.
I ask because I've been working on many, many (complex) WinForms apps for a few years now, and I can hardly recall ever calling out to Win32 directly. Maybe ONCE for some very custom icon drawing in a bizarre TreeView I was crafting. (And which I believe I could accomplish without P/Invoke in
Because they don't legally have the option to run it under Wine. The MS Office for Windows EULA states that it may only be run under Microsoft operating systems.
If that person doesn't like the EULA, they should use something else, like oo.org.
That may be true for a cheap (sub $500) direct-view LCD TV, but any modern, large screen LCD TV will not exhibit this problem.
I've had a Sony LCD rear projection for a few years now, and I've never seen any kind of bluring. And as Sony is about to release the 5th generation of this TV, I'd say the problem has been fixed for a reasonably long time.
Even when I'm play Halo 2, there is absolutely no blurring; it should be easy to find an LCD TV > $2500 that doesn't blur. I have not done a lot of research in the $1500 range, so I cannot claim to be sure about those TVs.
I will say that I've noticed that fax-over-Vonage has dramatically improved over the past month. I've been doing 8-10 page faxes (both coming and going) without incident, whereas this past summer a successful 3 page fax was a miracle.
Actually, it's a limitation of the image program the person is using. Win2K and it's offspring (XP) can make use of lots of address space (read: >4GB). But, it's neither easy nor automatic. The OS will 'automatically' let each process have up to 4GB of address space (well, 2GB by default and 3GB with the right switches so the OS can have the other 1GB for its uses) (and you cannot allocate one contiguous 3GB block due to some, um, old issues), but using AWE (Address Windowing Extensions), you can basically augment your program with a paging mechanism which will give you 64-bit addressing. (But you need to page in and out of thar 64-bit space into your process' 32-bit space.) Oh, and if you want to access more RAM than 4GB from a single process, you'd need to use PAE (if your system supports it).
0 8.aspx) if you really care about any of this.
Read Raymond Chen's August 2004 blog entries (http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/archive/2004/
I agree -- it's most unfortunate that they pulled it, as I also thought it was the best new feature. But, like I said, if you want the feature, it can be 'put back in'...instructions abound.
I'd use mod points, but there is no "uninformative" choice.
XP SP2 has no such feature! Granted, early betas of SP2 did have this feature, but it disappeared at least 6 month ago. This feature may live on in XP Media Center Edition 2004, as I hear it may be used to handle some multi-room a/v features, but it is certainly not a feature of XP Home SP2 or XP Professional SP2.
Now, if you really want this feature, you can mix and match an early beta version of one of the terminal server dll's with some registry and group policy changes, and get this to work, but you'd be violating the EULA if you did so. [Instructions are just a google away...]
Ummm...the compilers have been around for free for many years as part of the free platform sdk download. But I agree that other free IDEs have put pressure on MSFT to release these free tools.
MSFT has not committed to keeping these "community" tools free forever, either.
But it's unfair to say that non-free MSFT IDE's "cost a fortune" -- the single-language, non-enterprise versions have been in the $100 range for a long time.
Bill does offer a free (as in beer) development environment for hobbyists: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/
Not customizable from GDS, but, of course, you can change the location of any user's profile directory via Windows.
Gmail integration is not an option, but a highly requested feature.
You can find the index here: \Documents and Settings\userid\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Google Desktop Search
In my case, GDS found 134,576 items it deemed worthy of indexing; the index consumes 1.58GB of disk space.
It runs under the account of the user who installed the program -- so, as has been said, if Google Desktop Search found something, the user already had access to the same data.
Sadly, GDS doesn't seem to be able to install multiple web servers on different ports, so each individual log in can have their own index. The first userid to install GDS gets to use it, and no one else.
Well, what about something like Oracle JDeveloper? Here's a very complete and modern GUI IDE, written in Java, which runs unaltered on many operating systems.
Maybe you can't find it on the shelf at a retail computer store, but it is a for-purchase product. (Free to download and play with, of course.)
Perhaps a Troll, but he didn't say he wrote the HTML for the controls. Some of the ASP.NET controls don't always play nice in other browsers (but most of them do).
Ouch! You have a sick mind!
I don't see that other posting -- do you mean the AC posting about client-side validation? Depending upon the version of Moz and if javaScript is turned on and yadda yadda, yes, I agree that the built-in controls don't always work. But the vast majority of them do, and the ones that don't can be easily fixed to work with particular browser versions.
The client-side activation work fine with FireFox, but if I remember correctly it's because with FireFox is simply becomes a round-trip postback with server-side validation.
(Of course, all of the controls ultimately do a server-side validation, for those who are wondering. The client-side validation is just to make the interface more responive and prettier.)
I do a ton fo ASP.NET work, and it all runs just fine in FireFox (that's one of the points of ASP.NET -- browser-independent controls).
The only time I use IE in development is when I want an integrated browser/server debugging session. But, otherwise, at our ASP.NET shop, EVERYONE runs FireFox.
True, MSFT stopped gving out OPTIONS, but you seemed to have ignored the fact that they now give out STOCK -- you don't have to wait for it to 'vest'. Some would says that's a whole lot better, and it at least appears to give a clearer picture on the books, because the effect is reflected immediately.
I've had problems with some hotfixes wanting to be applied over-and-over again; don't remember if 833732 was one of them.
In any event, the problem often resulted from a customization I had made to Windows. In particular, if I had moved some system files to a new location (e.g. dllcache). Normally, this isn't a problem -- you just make some registry changes to point to the new location, copy the files, etc. But I've come to find that some hotfixes (which, as Microsoft states, often have not been through a full regression test) are hard-coded to things like the C: drive. So, they blindly look in C:\Windows\System32 for the updates files, don't find them, and indicate an update is required.
Now, more oddly still, often the patch updates in the correct location -- i.e. where the registry says the files should be.
So, you return to Windows Updates, and the C:\Windows\System32 files are still out-of-date (because the update was applied to the correct files), and you are told you need to apply the patch.
Rinse. Repeat.
Now, if this is your problem, there is a good chance that you are patched. But, who knows? It sure doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling to be told to apply the patch over-and-over again.
Whenever Windows Update applies a patch, it does generate a log file. You can try to scan the log file to see what it's doing and look for errors. That's how I determined the cause of my problem. My solution was to copy the patched files into the hard-coded directory, even though I never run those copies. A symlink would probably be a better choice...
(If you've never edited your registry to move files, maybe you've used something like TweakUI? Can cause the same problem, for the same reasons.)
Licensing is for physical processors only. So, even today, if you have 2 physical CPUs with hyperthreading, you are compliant. Task Manager will show 4 CPUs, but the OS can determine that only 2 are physical.
I suspect, however, that a dual-core CPU will be treated as 2 physical cpus...(+2 virtual CPUs)
You are remembering raging.com, still up-and-running today.