Actually Yosho is right - you need to specifally target the Compact Framework.
But in regards to the Marketing/UI departments I think you are absolutley correct! I am continually surprised how a device like the iPhone with no Copy/Paste, Picture messaging, Multi-tasking or Calendar connection to Exchange can be considered a good buy for corporate people... I really think the MS marketing and UI departments need to learn a few lessons from Apple.
When you are an ISV or Gold Partner, MS grants you a number of licenses for all this stuff which I tend to gloss over from time to time.
Back to the original point, from the other comments it appears that the Android app restrictions apply only to the Google App Store rather than the device itself. You could still sell non-conformant software, just not in their app store?
When Microsoft release their App Store concept for Windows Mobile, it may well have a matching set of absurd conditions... who knows. I hope they learn from the other's mistakes.
Hmm.. I'm no expert but doesn't Cydia require the user to jailbreak their iPhone?
Anyhow the point here that I didn't quite realise the first time around is that this Android restriction seems only to apply to the Android app store and not the device itself. APparently you can still distribute Android apps that don't adhere to the App Store rules.
I can write my app, I don't have to pay anyone or tell anyone. My app can do whatever I want, to the limits of possibility. I can sell my app or give it away to enrich the platform.
I'm not so keen on these App Store ideas - or phones that require you to upload your app to the mothership so it can be validated that it doesn't conflict with any one else's future business plans.
Just compile, run, and distribute.... whats wrong with that?
I found the Cooperative play in Conflict Desert Storm I, II and Conflict Global for XBOX to be great fun for both players even when one has more skill/practice. These games actualy don't have a head-to-head mode and are solely based on cooperative play. On xbox live this is great where its so common to find head-to-head games where the beginner has to put in so much time and effort to even have a chance the conflict games foster an environment where the experienced player has the pleasure of mentoring the beginner and the beginner learns quicker and reaches their comfort zone with game fast. (Even more for me because im a bit older and have had too much coffee in my lifetime plus have to fight the lag factor of being in Australia when playing against US people)
Every time your solution is proposed, people bring up the issue of those emergency personel who must be able to be contacted 24/7.
These sort of personell encounter these sort of No Cerverage areas regularly, underground trains, elevators, basements, or proceeding into a hospital, where cell phones must be switched off etc. etc. Having a cell phone doesn't provide 24/7 connectivity. If there was a sign on the Cinema door saying "This Cinema does not have cell phone cerverage" Then I am pretty sure the emergency personell could make a rational decision about proceeding, the same way they would make a rational decision about proceeding into a subway station, a basement elevator, or a hospital.
*shrug*
If no cell phone usage in cinemas/public performance places, becomes law, would the emergency personell think they are above the law?
Hmmm... if I owned a cinema, I would have no problem implementing the wire mesh in the walls and sign on the door. Im sure increased business and happiness from all of those people who posted on the list saying "me too" to being annoyed by phones in cinemas would far outway the business of the emergency personell not present.
I too was sitting in the Cinema the other day whe a cell phone went off and wondered to myself:
Why don't they just put wire mesh on the walls of theatres and cinemas. The wire mesh gaps being the wavelength of cell phones (which I think is about 35cm) Then all that would happen is that those people who didn't turn their cell phones off would have flat betteries by the end of the film:)
I can't really see any down side to this - technical solution to a technical problem.
From a personal perspective I can see nothing unexpected happening here:
1. Microsoft's mission statement from inception has always been to have every computer run Microsoft software. They are a private enterprise and our society sees nothing wrong with a private enterprises aim for market domination. In fact if a private enterprise does not have this objective, they will fail. The objective promotes competition because all the private enterprises in a market have conflicting objectives. While none succeed this suits the consumer fine. The moment one succeeds, suddenly its unfair and unlawful? Surely with all private enterprises setting goals of market dominance, you can't expect them all to fail?
2. Personally I don't care who domaintes the Desktop market, but a bit of dominance is a good thing. Im sure hardware manufactures have thrived in the light of UPnP, DirectX and certification. Developers have thrived with such standards as Win32, and will in the future with.NET and Intermediate Machine Language, while Java declines. Many mouths have been fed as a result. As a developer I choose to maintain skills in the most prevalent technology, to maximise my usefulness and value. Right now thats programming for the Win32 desktop.
I think Linux is a wonderous thing, and the world is definately a better place with Linux in it.
Linux plays an important role in computing making people free to choose how they spend on software vs. training. Companies that don't want to invest in user training, buy Microsoft. Companies that already have highly skilled computer professionals can use Linux and not pay for the extra human interface bloat. It lowers the barriers for charities and non-profit organisations. Catering for a near religious movement and providing an outlet for intellectual rebelion. Maintaining balance, it highlighs when industry standards aren't, and that is enough to promote real standards which will eventually have to be adopted by all.
But Linux is a different animal to Microsoft's OS. And as long as Microsoft exists, its goal will lead it to adapt itself to the best of its abilities to ensure it is the predominant OS. If this is not what the larger community wants then why let such an organisation exist? Why does Linux aim to usurp Microsoft? I think it already plays its own important role, and more than satisfys its own objectives. Why is Linux dominating the open source arena? Is this unfair or unlawful?
I think most would agree, No. But it does get you thinking.
>this one refers to a scenario where a W2k client >can crash a BIND 8.1.1 DNS server (8.1.2 & above >are OK)
This is not surprising, Microsoft said (at Teched 99) that Win2k will not work with a 3rd party DNS server unless it is BIND 8.1.2 (or above) compatible, meaning among other things that it implements SRV records (RFC 2052), and Dynamic Updates (RFC 2136).
If you follow those Novell URL's its obvious that NDS is a very evolved product. Novell is unfortunately facing a loosing battle that stems from the fact that their overall suite of applications is poor. For those organisations using NDS comparing Groupwise vs. Exchange has lead many of them choose Exchange server for their messaging.
It is these same organisations that have NDS and Exchange that will be changing to Windows 2000 and Active Directory, as the next version of Exchange will REQUIRE it. As in the past, it seems Microsoft will use their dominance in one area to leverage its way into other areas. This is what is causing them to have so much trouble with the DOJ lately.
I'm sorry - but I have to pull you up on "never looses data". Microsoft Exchange Server is *constantly* screwing the *massive_single_file* it uses as an information store.
This is probably not going to help you much but I did notice that OpenSound ship drivers (that are not free) that provide the ability to share the sound card device between multiple apps and mix the results.
This is for example, running two MP3 players at the one time, each one not aware of the other, but both playing out of the same device. This would probably allow you to use/write something with XAudio to do the job
Slashdot Mirror
as they prep for the move to ARM by 2020 for the Mac they only want to write one emulator - they only want to have to emulate AMD64 on ARM64 not x86.
Seems pretty clear.
The elephant in the room is that only the open source emulators are affected?
To those that say that no one uses floppy disk controllers - almost all VM tools are loaded into machines via floppy images.
... in the cinema walls are the answer.
Seems logical - as a Tax Payer, the data should be available to me.
Although I hope its not leveraged too heavily by the commercial sector.
Actually Yosho is right - you need to specifally target the Compact Framework.
But in regards to the Marketing/UI departments I think you are absolutley correct! I am continually surprised how a device like the iPhone with no Copy/Paste, Picture messaging, Multi-tasking or Calendar connection to Exchange can be considered a good buy for corporate people... I really think the MS marketing and UI departments need to learn a few lessons from Apple.
J.
Point well made - I believe your are right.
When you are an ISV or Gold Partner, MS grants you a number of licenses for all this stuff which I tend to gloss over from time to time.
Back to the original point, from the other comments it appears that the Android app restrictions apply only to the Google App Store rather than the device itself. You could still sell non-conformant software, just not in their app store?
When Microsoft release their App Store concept for Windows Mobile, it may well have a matching set of absurd conditions ... who knows. I hope they learn from the other's mistakes.
Cheers,
J.
Hmm .. I'm no expert but doesn't Cydia require the user to jailbreak their iPhone?
Anyhow the point here that I didn't quite realise the first time around is that this Android restriction seems only to apply to the Android app store and not the device itself. APparently you can still distribute Android apps that don't adhere to the App Store rules.
This is why I use and develop for Windows Mobile.
I can write my app, I don't have to pay anyone or tell anyone.
My app can do whatever I want, to the limits of possibility.
I can sell my app or give it away to enrich the platform.
I'm not so keen on these App Store ideas - or phones that require you to upload your app to the mothership so it can be validated that it doesn't conflict with any one else's future business plans.
Just compile, run, and distribute .... whats wrong with that?
I found the Cooperative play in Conflict Desert Storm I, II and Conflict Global for XBOX to be great fun for both players even when one has more skill/practice. These games actualy don't have a head-to-head mode and are solely based on cooperative play. On xbox live this is great where its so common to find head-to-head games where the beginner has to put in so much time and effort to even have a chance the conflict games foster an environment where the experienced player has the pleasure of mentoring the beginner and the beginner learns quicker and reaches their comfort zone with game fast. (Even more for me because im a bit older and have had too much coffee in my lifetime plus have to fight the lag factor of being in Australia when playing against US people)
Anyhow - totally recommend the Conflict games.
DVD's are already protected by a digital wrapper that prevents them from being copied
AFAIK, CSS stops you decrypting the contents... you can still copy an encrypted file to your heart's content.
If people are going to write technology stories, it would help their credability to get the facts/terminology right!
Every time your solution is proposed, people bring up the issue of those emergency personel who must be able to be contacted 24/7.
These sort of personell encounter these sort of No Cerverage areas regularly, underground trains, elevators, basements, or proceeding into a hospital, where cell phones must be switched off etc. etc. Having a cell phone doesn't provide 24/7 connectivity. If there was a sign on the Cinema door saying "This Cinema does not have cell phone cerverage" Then I am pretty sure the emergency personell could make a rational decision about proceeding, the same way they would make a rational decision about proceeding into a subway station, a basement elevator, or a hospital.
*shrug*
If no cell phone usage in cinemas/public performance places, becomes law, would the emergency personell think they are above the law?
Hmmm... if I owned a cinema, I would have no problem implementing the wire mesh in the walls and sign on the door. Im sure increased business and happiness from all of those people who posted on the list saying "me too" to being annoyed by phones in cinemas would far outway the business of the emergency personell not present.
I too was sitting in the Cinema the other day whe a cell phone went off and wondered to myself:
:)
Why don't they just put wire mesh on the walls of theatres and cinemas. The wire mesh gaps being the wavelength of cell phones (which I think is about 35cm) Then all that would happen is that those people who didn't turn their cell phones off would have flat betteries by the end of the film
I can't really see any down side to this - technical solution to a technical problem.
From a personal perspective I can see nothing unexpected happening here:
.NET and Intermediate Machine Language, while Java declines. Many mouths have been fed as a result. As a developer I choose to maintain skills in the most prevalent technology, to maximise my usefulness and value. Right now thats programming for the Win32 desktop.
1. Microsoft's mission statement from inception has always been to have every computer run Microsoft software. They are a private enterprise and our society sees nothing wrong with a private enterprises aim for market domination. In fact if a private enterprise does not have this objective, they will fail. The objective promotes competition because all the private enterprises in a market have conflicting objectives. While none succeed this suits the consumer fine. The moment one succeeds, suddenly its unfair and unlawful? Surely with all private enterprises setting goals of market dominance, you can't expect them all to fail?
2. Personally I don't care who domaintes the Desktop market, but a bit of dominance is a good thing. Im sure hardware manufactures have thrived in the light of UPnP, DirectX and certification. Developers have thrived with such standards as Win32, and will in the future with
I think Linux is a wonderous thing, and the world is definately a better place with Linux in it.
Linux plays an important role in computing making people free to choose how they spend on software vs. training. Companies that don't want to invest in user training, buy Microsoft. Companies that already have highly skilled computer professionals can use Linux and not pay for the extra human interface bloat. It lowers the barriers for charities and non-profit organisations. Catering for a near religious movement and providing an outlet for intellectual rebelion. Maintaining balance, it highlighs when industry standards aren't, and that is enough to promote real standards which will eventually have to be adopted by all.
But Linux is a different animal to Microsoft's OS. And as long as Microsoft exists, its goal will lead it to adapt itself to the best of its abilities to ensure it is the predominant OS. If this is not what the larger community wants then why let such an organisation exist? Why does Linux aim to usurp Microsoft? I think it already plays its own important role, and more than satisfys its own objectives. Why is Linux dominating the open source arena? Is this unfair or unlawful?
I think most would agree, No. But it does get you thinking.
Regards,
Jamz
>this one refers to a scenario where a W2k client
>can crash a BIND 8.1.1 DNS server (8.1.2 & above
>are OK)
This is not surprising, Microsoft said (at Teched 99) that Win2k will not work with a 3rd party DNS server unless it is BIND 8.1.2 (or above) compatible, meaning among other things that it implements SRV records (RFC 2052), and Dynamic Updates (RFC 2136).
If you follow those Novell URL's its obvious that NDS is a very evolved product. Novell is unfortunately facing a loosing battle that stems from the fact that their overall suite of applications is poor. For those organisations using NDS comparing Groupwise vs. Exchange has lead many of them choose Exchange server for their messaging.
It is these same organisations that have NDS and Exchange that will be changing to Windows 2000 and Active Directory, as the next version of Exchange will REQUIRE it. As in the past, it seems Microsoft will use their dominance in one area to leverage its way into other areas. This is what is causing them to have so much trouble with the DOJ lately.
Anyhow, thats the way it seems to me.
Jamz.
I'm sorry - but I have to pull you up on "never looses data". Microsoft Exchange Server is *constantly* screwing the *massive_single_file* it uses as an information store.
This is probably not going to help you much but I did notice that OpenSound ship drivers (that are not free) that provide the ability to share the sound card device between multiple apps and mix the results.
This is for example, running two MP3 players at the one time, each one not aware of the other, but both playing out of the same device. This would probably allow you to use/write something with XAudio to do the job
Regards,
Jamz