Which really bogus me is why, for MS, a "functional" interface should be ugly? Purple background, no transparency/rounded_borders/shadows/effects. And other competitors, like iOS and Android 4, are very pretty, with a lot of eye candies, while not heavy.
One of the XP strengths is NetMeeting. You can simple get your team online, share screen with all the team, talk, remote control desktop, etc.
They completely dropped NetMeeting on Vista for a poor tool (MeetingSpace), and then tried replace it MeetingSpace with a lot of different tools (I think they're in a fourth attempt with Office365).
They definitely killed one of the most appealing tool for enterprise.
While JIT compiled (sometimes not entirely), they still relies on a VM. This requires more RAM memory and the first run, when code is being compiled to JIT, requires faster CPUs and more RAM memory than native binaries.
And don't forget NetMeeting. While I worked for EDS/HP and IBM, NetMeeting has a intense use for meeting and screen-sharing in groups. Microsoft kill this tool in Vista/7, trying sell new tools, which are replaced about 3 or 4 times, with no success (now companies are using web third-party meeting tools).
Most common excuse for don't open the source for drivers is IP. But most part of times, the real reason is users will see there is no difference in hardware between standard and platinum cards.
Well, if you have a proper Quality Assurance in parallel with your coding (but real QA, not only monkeys checking UI), the amount of bugs will be minimized.
So, in the contract, I always specify: clear bugs will be fixed. Any issue that is more to feature request, will be cost estimated.
It was responsive? It costs a fair amount? Was UI friendly for average joe? It was fast?
Working software, even almost bug free, is not the same as good software (one of QA principles).
My main concern about IE7,8 and 9 is not about the render speed. Is the speed of the program itself. It takes much more time to startup, to open new tabs, to do ANYTHING. I cannot notice if a page render more milliseconds faster than on Firefox, but bothers me when I want a new tab and this take seconds.
My main concern is related to see if I can remove the pre-installed AV. Of if it'll be like IE and other MS stuffs that you can only hidden, not a true uninstall.
Anyway, I always miss the advanced setup installer for the OS, like in the Win98, when I can select which programs I want install.
The Windows for Legacy PCs has this feature, but it's only for MS partners and it's based on XP.
When I was using Eclipse only as an IDE, it was fine. When I worked at IBM, and saw EVERY program there uses Eclipse as base, I got scared. Sametime runs on top of a Eclipse base, Notes, Rational Portfolio Manager, every piece of Hello World runs on top of it. As you can imagine, even the NASA PCs can handle that.
... is that a signed Java applet is like any binary running on your box. People have the illusion that any applet is secure, signed or unsigned. And if you have admin rights, the hole will awesome.
See in this post comments, how people think that test is only unit tests.
Testing must not be write by developers. Period. Reasons: developers are the bottleneck (about time) of the development process, they think that software as their chield, they are so much time over the software that they cannot see obvious defects, developers look for a defect how a negative point for his software (and we known that ANY software in the world, even the most simple one, has a lot of bugs), they have a lot of software know-how that average joe user do not have, so if you ask to a developer test your own software, you're wasting money. Sure, they must write and run unit testing, but this is the minor portion of testing.
Testing starts when someone starts write requirements docs. Someone from testing team must read this document and check for ambiguities. At this moment, find some ambiguity, it's the most cheap testing. If you find a bug in the internal testing, it's more expensive then find it on doc. More expensive than that, is find a bug on user acceptance test. But, the really most expensive bug, is the one found in a running/deployed software: you have to take time to really understand the bug, put the analyst to re-design, programmer to fix, and testers to run it again.
It's hard to find a excellent tester, cause he must really understand the application, it's good if he have a base background of develop (when automation is needed), he must understand how to write negative tests, he must have excellent communication skills (write and talk), etc
And, the best documentation to start learn about testing, is the International Software Testing Qualifications Board syllabus: http://istqb.org/download/attachments/2326555/Foundation+Level+Syllabus+(2010).pdf
The good thing about ISTQB: it's not related to any commercial company.
And, testing is not about run an audit in the testing team. Testing team has the same objective that all the company: deliver a free bug software (free bug is impossible, but at least at an acceptable level).
Slashdot Mirror
Which really bogus me is why, for MS, a "functional" interface should be ugly? Purple background, no transparency/rounded_borders/shadows/effects. And other competitors, like iOS and Android 4, are very pretty, with a lot of eye candies, while not heavy.
And it's a nightly build! Not a stable release!
One of the XP strengths is NetMeeting. You can simple get your team online, share screen with all the team, talk, remote control desktop, etc. They completely dropped NetMeeting on Vista for a poor tool (MeetingSpace), and then tried replace it MeetingSpace with a lot of different tools (I think they're in a fourth attempt with Office365). They definitely killed one of the most appealing tool for enterprise.
While JIT compiled (sometimes not entirely), they still relies on a VM. This requires more RAM memory and the first run, when code is being compiled to JIT, requires faster CPUs and more RAM memory than native binaries.
I need to sleep before read Slashdot news.
And please, do not use buzz words. Like "powerful", "rich" and other "impossible to measure/no meaning" words.
And don't forget NetMeeting. While I worked for EDS/HP and IBM, NetMeeting has a intense use for meeting and screen-sharing in groups. Microsoft kill this tool in Vista/7, trying sell new tools, which are replaced about 3 or 4 times, with no success (now companies are using web third-party meeting tools).
Of course, all you describe are daily tasks for average joe.
Most common excuse for don't open the source for drivers is IP. But most part of times, the real reason is users will see there is no difference in hardware between standard and platinum cards.
Well, if you have a proper Quality Assurance in parallel with your coding (but real QA, not only monkeys checking UI), the amount of bugs will be minimized. So, in the contract, I always specify: clear bugs will be fixed. Any issue that is more to feature request, will be cost estimated.
Orkut was a internal product: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkut
It was responsive? It costs a fair amount? Was UI friendly for average joe? It was fast? Working software, even almost bug free, is not the same as good software (one of QA principles).
My main concern about IE7,8 and 9 is not about the render speed. Is the speed of the program itself. It takes much more time to startup, to open new tabs, to do ANYTHING. I cannot notice if a page render more milliseconds faster than on Firefox, but bothers me when I want a new tab and this take seconds.
My main concern is related to see if I can remove the pre-installed AV. Of if it'll be like IE and other MS stuffs that you can only hidden, not a true uninstall. Anyway, I always miss the advanced setup installer for the OS, like in the Win98, when I can select which programs I want install. The Windows for Legacy PCs has this feature, but it's only for MS partners and it's based on XP.
It requires all software to be written in Java... script :D
When I was using Eclipse only as an IDE, it was fine. When I worked at IBM, and saw EVERY program there uses Eclipse as base, I got scared. Sametime runs on top of a Eclipse base, Notes, Rational Portfolio Manager, every piece of Hello World runs on top of it. As you can imagine, even the NASA PCs can handle that.
... congrat these employees?
Why not just keep updating/upgrading S40?
Good times when devices get a battle on technological specs, features and UI, not on tribunals.
This is a serious question: how different is run WebGL on GPU than run GPU accelerated Flash content? Are those different issues?
... is that a signed Java applet is like any binary running on your box. People have the illusion that any applet is secure, signed or unsigned. And if you have admin rights, the hole will awesome.
Sorry, I forgot to send the comment as pure text (it lost the paragraphs).
See in this post comments, how people think that test is only unit tests. Testing must not be write by developers. Period. Reasons: developers are the bottleneck (about time) of the development process, they think that software as their chield, they are so much time over the software that they cannot see obvious defects, developers look for a defect how a negative point for his software (and we known that ANY software in the world, even the most simple one, has a lot of bugs), they have a lot of software know-how that average joe user do not have, so if you ask to a developer test your own software, you're wasting money. Sure, they must write and run unit testing, but this is the minor portion of testing. Testing starts when someone starts write requirements docs. Someone from testing team must read this document and check for ambiguities. At this moment, find some ambiguity, it's the most cheap testing. If you find a bug in the internal testing, it's more expensive then find it on doc. More expensive than that, is find a bug on user acceptance test. But, the really most expensive bug, is the one found in a running/deployed software: you have to take time to really understand the bug, put the analyst to re-design, programmer to fix, and testers to run it again. It's hard to find a excellent tester, cause he must really understand the application, it's good if he have a base background of develop (when automation is needed), he must understand how to write negative tests, he must have excellent communication skills (write and talk), etc And, the best documentation to start learn about testing, is the International Software Testing Qualifications Board syllabus: http://istqb.org/download/attachments/2326555/Foundation+Level+Syllabus+(2010).pdf The good thing about ISTQB: it's not related to any commercial company. And, testing is not about run an audit in the testing team. Testing team has the same objective that all the company: deliver a free bug software (free bug is impossible, but at least at an acceptable level).
Name it Matrix.
Oh, really? You can note that I forget one letter, but you can't understand irony.