Linked by fran on Mon 25th Oct 2010 15:23 UTC
Windows Windows 8 isn't expected to be released until the end of 2012 and "new feature" details is still officially non-existent, but some of these recent rumours began to bear more weight since a slide was "officially leaked" on Microsoft-journal.spaces.live.com/blog. This slide although has since been removed, but it can however still be seen on lmsfkitchen.
Order by: Score:
One terabyte ?
by Neolander on Mon 25th Oct 2010 15:45 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Since when is 2^52 = 1TB ?
I thought that 2^52 ~ 10^15 while 1 tera = 10^12 ?

Reply Score: 4

128
by d.marcu on Mon 25th Oct 2010 15:55 UTC
d.marcu
Member since:
2009-12-27

10 years later (yes, there where talks about windows 2000 64 bit), and we still work on 32 bit like in 1995 mainly because windows stayed away from 64 bit and they didn't encouraged developers to release 64 bit versions of the apps. And they dream about 128 bit windows. What a joke!

Reply Score: 1

RE: 128
by steogede2 on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:03 UTC in reply to "128"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

10 years later (yes, there where talks about windows 2000 64 bit), and we still work on 32 bit like in 1995 mainly because windows stayed away from 64 bit and they didn't encouraged developers to release 64 bit versions of the apps. And they dream about 128 bit windows. What a joke!


Perhaps they are trying to learn from their mistake? (no, I don't believe it either)

Reply Score: 1

RE: 128
by Zifre on Mon 25th Oct 2010 22:50 UTC in reply to "128"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

The article doesn't say it, but I'm quite sure that this is about a 128 bit file system.

There is no 128 bit addressing CPU in existence, so it would be both impossible and pointless to make a 128 bit OS in the sense of 32 bit and 64 bit OSs (i.e. address space size).

Reply Score: 4

RE: 128
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Oct 2010 21:14 UTC in reply to "128"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

128 bit FILE SYSTEM SUPPORT.

no one is even considering a need for 128 bit CPU support.

Reply Score: 2

gdi / 2d acceleration
by wd850 on Mon 25th Oct 2010 15:58 UTC
wd850
Member since:
2009-05-20

I would prefer if they reintroduced 2d gdi acceleration using the windows classic theme rather than faster startup, I only restart once a fortnight.

XP had it, why cant Win 7/8???

The classic theme on Windows 7 performs like a dog on my PC, and I have a GTX260. God only knows what its like if you have integrated Intel gfx.

Edited 2010-10-25 16:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: gdi / 2d acceleration
by kaiwai on Mon 25th Oct 2010 18:38 UTC in reply to "gdi / 2d acceleration"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows 7 already has hardware accelerated GDI, it is up to the driver vendor to provide a WWDM 1.1 compliant driver which supports GDI acceleration. Why do you want to use classic theme? the classic theme disables all forms of hardware acceleration so there is no benefit to using it over using aero.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: gdi / 2d acceleration
by Flatland_Spider on Mon 25th Oct 2010 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE: gdi / 2d acceleration"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Classic is cleaner and thinner then Aero, and themes takes up a chunk of memory which could be better used. After a while, Aero is just too clownish. It looked good initially, but it's gotten annoying.

I'd like to get a hardware accelerated classic theme, and I was surprised when I found out that wasn't the case. Well, half surprised. The duality of MS makes itself know quite regularly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: gdi / 2d acceleration
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 26th Oct 2010 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE: gdi / 2d acceleration"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

the classic theme disables all forms of hardware acceleration so there is no benefit to using it over using aero.

Other than it looks better. Personal preference obviously, but I am talking about why I use it. I prefer how it looks, so I use it, so it would be nice if it was accelerated, though I haven't noticed the sluggishness wd850 has. Works fine for me.

I know I'm in the minority. I can wish without expecting it to actually have a chance of happening ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: gdi / 2d acceleration
by wd850 on Tue 26th Oct 2010 02:24 UTC in reply to "gdi / 2d acceleration"
wd850 Member since:
2009-05-20

IMO Aero is worse that the XP fisher price look for real work.

I work on my PC and don't expect it to look like a toy, additionally Aero gives me eye strain (so does Cleartype), hence I turn them both off an go back to my classic desktop.

As for GDI is already accelerated if you have a WDDM 1.1 driver, it only accelerates a few functions out of about 100+ that were accelerated in XP.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: gdi / 2d acceleration
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Oct 2010 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE: gdi / 2d acceleration"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

stop using a CRT and you will be fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: gdi / 2d acceleration
by Neolander on Wed 27th Oct 2010 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: gdi / 2d acceleration"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

stop using a CRT and you will be fine.

Wrong. It's on LCDs that Aero is worst, because its bad habit of putting white text on a shiny background is a nightmare as soon as you stop looking with the perfect vision angle (tm). Even worse when reflections start to appear on those horrible shiny screens that took over the computer world some time ago.

I wish the guys who worked on Aero had learned some basic notions of optics first, the contrast notion in particular.

Edited 2010-10-27 20:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: gdi / 2d acceleration
by malxau on Tue 26th Oct 2010 06:22 UTC in reply to "gdi / 2d acceleration"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

I have a GTX260...God only knows what its like if you have integrated Intel gfx.


About the same, since it's not hardware accelerated.

Reply Score: 1

RE: gdi / 2d acceleration
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Oct 2010 21:16 UTC in reply to "gdi / 2d acceleration"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

you are either doing something wrong or are a liar.

The UI acceleration works great on my wife's little netbook with an atom CPU and intel integrated graphics.... much better UI experience than XP.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: gdi / 2d acceleration
by abraxas on Wed 27th Oct 2010 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE: gdi / 2d acceleration"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

you are either doing something wrong or are a liar.

The UI acceleration works great on my wife's little netbook with an atom CPU and intel integrated graphics.... much better UI experience than XP.


You're wrong. Hardware acceleration is disabled with the classic theme.

Reply Score: 2

128 bits address space is overkill.
by Bruno on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:01 UTC
Bruno
Member since:
2005-07-13

You do not need a 128 bit address space to have more than 1 Tb of RAM. In fact, if this limitation really exists in 64 bit versions of Windows, it is probably an artificial one.

Reply Score: 3

Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

I'm quite sure that it is about a 128 bit file system. There is currently no CPU or even architecture that can address 128 bits of RAM.

Reply Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Probably, just like how certain versions of Windows Server are artificially limited, i.e. Server Standard to 32GB of RAM, Foundation to 8GB. They do that so they can upsell you to the next prohibitively expensive version.

Reply Score: 2

Not 1TB
by telns on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:07 UTC
telns
Member since:
2009-06-18

2008 R2 can address up to 2TB of RAM, but that is just some internal limit. It has nothing to do with exhausting 64b of address space.

Even 48-bit addressing (ala, AMD64) will get you to 256TB.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not 1TB
by Neolander on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:28 UTC in reply to "Not 1TB"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

2008 R2 can address up to 2TB of RAM, but that is just some internal limit. It has nothing to do with exhausting 64b of address space.

Even 48-bit addressing (ala, AMD64) will get you to 256TB.

Please note that the theoretical limit of AMD64 is 52-bit (so maximal amount of addressable physical memory is around 4 PB), not 48-bit. I heard about this 48 bit number several times, so I suppose that it's a limitation of current AMD64 hardware, but I can guarantee you that it's not the architectural limit.

(See AMD Manual 2, section 5.3 "Long-Mode Page Translation", pages 128-129 in the november 2009 revision)

PS : I hope home computer won't waste so much hardware resources that they require more than that amount of RAM anytime soon... And in the server market, I thought the current hype was around distributed operating systems with many low-powered nodes in big networks ?

Edited 2010-10-25 16:42 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Not 1TB
by jgagnon on Mon 25th Oct 2010 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Not 1TB"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

I'm putting together a system with 24 GB of RAM just because I can (my current system has 8 GB for the same reason) not because I should. If it was possible to put in 256 TB and I could afford it, I probably would do it and I'm sure I am not alone. It is fun to come up with enough things to fill all of that space, at least it is for me.

In my case at least, it isn't ego-stroking that drives the desire to build the machine, it is just to play through the "what if" scenarios that constantly go through my head. :p

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not 1TB
by telns on Mon 25th Oct 2010 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Not 1TB"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

Yes, as far as I know, all current AMD64 hardware uses 48-bit addressing. It is cheaper to manufacture, and there is no need for more than that now.

I am guessing this 1TB thing is a misunderstanding about the current 2TB limit in Windows, and the fact that the address space is split in two parts (kernel/user). In fact, that does not lead to 1TB, but I am guessing that confusing those things is how this all got started.

Edited 2010-10-25 18:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

And?
by quackalist on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:17 UTC
quackalist
Member since:
2007-08-27

Seems like a lot of piffle aimed at partners about branding and trying to leverage ever more dosh out of users.

Stuff that, I can already get a Mac if so minded.

Assume we're not supposed to be expecting anything to get excited over.

Reply Score: 0

128-bit what?
by theosib on Mon 25th Oct 2010 16:20 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

We have processors that support some 128-bit instructions, and new ones coming out will also support 256-bit instructions. But these are vector instructions, and all modern operating systems already provide the very tiny bit of support that they need (i.e. saving and restoring the XMM registers on context switch).

So what in the world are they talking about? If Intel and AMD are working on processors whose primary ALUs and/or address space support 128-bit words natively, it's news to me. (And I'm technically an expert on CPU architecture.)

Conclusion: This is a silly rumor created and propagated by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

But then again, I'm probably daft for even bothering to glance at the list of rumored new features.

Reply Score: 5

RE: 128-bit what?
by jgagnon on Mon 25th Oct 2010 18:09 UTC in reply to "128-bit what?"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Probably 128-bit file system. Considering the conversion to 64-bit is still in its infancy, it would be complete lunacy for Intel, AMD, or anyone else to even consider a fully 128-bit CPU, least of all for an increase in address space.

Most of your high end machines don't even have 36-bits (64 GB) of addressable physical memory... it will be a LONG time before we have computers with a full 64-bits of addressable physical memory (that would be 1073741824 memory slots filled with 16 GB memory modules).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 128-bit what?
by theosib on Mon 25th Oct 2010 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE: 128-bit what?"
theosib Member since:
2006-03-02

Long before that, we'll have switched over completely to phase change memory. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 128-bit what?
by kaiwai on Mon 25th Oct 2010 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE: 128-bit what?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

True, when it first came out the general consensus by 'geeks' on the internet was that the 128bit reference was in regards to a file system given the rate of storage increasing at the need for a 128bit file system will come in high demand soon. There is also the issue of flash based storage and having a file system that is designed with that in mind so the advantages of the technology are utilised rather than the current situation of super imposing a disk paradigm on flash storage as we have today.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 128-bit what?
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Oct 2010 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 128-bit what?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

by 2012, I expect to be able to get a 500 GB SSD for 60 bucks.

With the reports that SSD prices will drop drastically this next year I think I will be buying a few.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 128-bit what?
by siride on Tue 26th Oct 2010 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE: 128-bit what?"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

128-bit is pointless because it is greater than the number of particles in the visible universe.

Reply Score: 2

Oh boy
by darknexus on Mon 25th Oct 2010 17:02 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Hmm, a completely new filesystem... where have I heard that before? Seems it wasn't so long ago... That's right, that's what Microsoft said about the brand new WinFS... which we never saw, nevermind that WinFS wasn't actually revolution but merely an SQL layer on top of an NTFS base.
And push-button reset, which implies a system restore area on the disk somewhere. Wonderful. Just what we need, another area for Malware to infect as if System Restore isn't hell enough already. Please please, let this one be only a rumor.
And about that app store? I don't mind that, so long as I'm not tied to it. Hopefully Microsoft isn't going to pull a fruit on us.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oh boy
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Oct 2010 21:27 UTC in reply to "Oh boy"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Well... lets see....

WinFS was suppose to allow a cloud of storage on the home network... and now we have WHS which... allows a cloud of storage on the home network. It is less ambitious than what WFS was suppose to be but it gets the same job done.... Now in reality we are talking about a LOW LEVEL file system to deal with the real world differences that exist between SSD and platter based storage. It is a real problem to solve for MS rather than a pie in the sky cool thing to par down to a separate product line. It will get done.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oh boy
by somebody on Thu 28th Oct 2010 06:07 UTC in reply to "Oh boy"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

nah, you are too late. as NT3.51 was released they promised that NT4 will have object based file system. after not delivering, they changed promise to WinFS and so on.

MS always makes me laugh on this one. all serious promises always get cut out of release anyway.

Reply Score: 2

Hopefully
by Almafeta on Mon 25th Oct 2010 17:02 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

It'd be refereshing if the trend from IE9 continues: improving the capabilities of the engine, without introducing eye-candy-only features that require relearning the interface from scratch for core functionality. Better capabilities, not shinier interfaces.

Reply Score: 2

v 1 Word, 4 syllables ...
by yvesdandoy on Mon 25th Oct 2010 17:09 UTC
2012!
by Valhalla on Mon 25th Oct 2010 17:38 UTC
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

End of 2012, maybe those Mayan's where on to something. ;)

Reply Score: 6

Windows poised to enter the last century
by mrAmiga500 on Mon 25th Oct 2010 18:39 UTC
mrAmiga500
Member since:
2009-03-20

"So in essence it implies a reinstall of Windows while maintaining all your personal files, applications and settings. This would be heaven sent for all PC technicians, DIYers and chronic upgraders."

Unbelievable that this is a "new feature". I can easily reinstall Amiga OS on my 1987 Amiga 500, while keeping all my existing applications, personal files and settings.

Sure, it'll be "new" on Windows - but only because of the stupid convoluted way Windows software was originally intended to be "installed" (probably deliberately done that way to prevent piracy). It is things like the stupid Windows registry, endless versions of .dll files and application files in 10 million locations that prevent easy application backup and recovery.

I bet that even this "new feature" will be designed in a painfully stupid way, forcing you to prove that you paid for each piece of software.

Edited 2010-10-25 18:39 UTC

Reply Score: 0

toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

"So in essence it implies a reinstall of Windows while maintaining all your personal files, applications and settings. This would be heaven sent for all PC technicians, DIYers and chronic upgraders."

Unbelievable that this is a "new feature". I can easily reinstall Amiga OS on my 1987 Amiga 500, while keeping all my existing applications, personal files and settings.

FULL ACK. That's the argument I'm always using when it comes to locales. My Amiga could switch the Workbench language from English to Swedish without a hitch, Windows still can't do this in 2010. Whoever claims the opposite is advised to install Windows 7 in English and install the native language pack for his language. Then watch how all kinds of applications detect an English Windows and install in English. And how that migration assistant keep on failing due to the language mismatch of source and target operating system.


Sure, it'll be "new" on Windows - but only because of the stupid convoluted way Windows software was originally intended to be "installed" (probably deliberately done that way to prevent piracy). It is things like the stupid Windows registry, endless versions of .dll files and application files in 10 million locations that prevent easy application backup and recovery.

I bet that even this "new feature" will be designed in a painfully stupid way, forcing you to prove that you paid for each piece of software.

I absolutely agree here. I remember the days when my dad got a Windows95 PC to replace my trusty old Amiga. It was such a drawback when it comes to usability. The first thought that I had was: "Dude, why are PCs so difficult to use. Why can't I just install an application by copying it onto the harddisk?!"

I will try to remember your words for the next advocacy argument =).

Adrian

Reply Score: 1

Comment by LobalSurgery
by LobalSurgery on Mon 25th Oct 2010 20:57 UTC
LobalSurgery
Member since:
2006-09-07

I dunno, the level of market-speak buzzwords in these slides is at least mildly disappointing:

"Approach to Engagement"

"Realized Value"

"Machine-centric vs. User-centric"

"Goals for Differentiation"

About a billion variations of the word "experience"


Speaking as a product developer myself, it's rather disheartening to see how marketing-driven Microsoft has become, apparently right to the core.

On the other hand, it's a great way to say something without saying anything. I bet the software engineers at Microsoft roll their eyes at this stuff!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by LobalSurgery
by tijuana on Tue 26th Oct 2010 07:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by LobalSurgery"
tijuana Member since:
2009-04-16

Here's a Marketing phrase Id like to see: get rid of the cruft

Reply Score: 1

Priorities
by Paradroid on Mon 25th Oct 2010 21:52 UTC
Paradroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

Can Microsoft please develop some nice UI improvements and a really good app store before getting bogged down with WinFS again.

That way they will actually have something to release in 2012 that will improve our lives in some small way when they can WinFS.

Interesting that they start looking into relational-database technology when some modern web sites are going away from it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Priorities
by Morph on Tue 26th Oct 2010 02:53 UTC in reply to "Priorities"
Morph Member since:
2007-08-20

Can Microsoft please develop some nice UI improvements...that will improve our lives in some small way

IMO, the Explorer UI has seen some great improvements in Windows Vista and 7. For instace, a search box in every explorer window, and the use of checkboxes to select multiple files. These UI improvements have improved my life a small way. Backend improvements like WinFS will complement these, eg. by making search faster. Anything else specific you had in mind?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Priorities
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 26th Oct 2010 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Priorities"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"Can Microsoft please develop some nice UI improvements...that will improve our lives in some small way

IMO, the Explorer UI has seen some great improvements in Windows Vista and 7. For instace, a search box in every explorer window, and the use of checkboxes to select multiple files. These UI improvements have improved my life a small way. Backend improvements like WinFS will complement these, eg. by making search faster. Anything else specific you had in mind?
"

Can't speak for the parent poster, but there are some basic Explorer UI tweaks/refinements I've been wishing for since Win95. Like a "resize window to fit contents" command*, and if I'm being really indulgent in my wishful thinking, a keyboard shortcut to go along with it.

Or a feature that's been present in nearly every other GUI file manager ever created: a keyboard shortcut to create a new folder. Hell, IIRC even the old Win3.x Fileman app had that functionality.

*I don't really like the way OS X has tried to extend that to every application, but I do think that "resize to fit" makes sense for a file manager.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Priorities
by Morph on Wed 27th Oct 2010 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Priorities"
Morph Member since:
2007-08-20

keyboard shortcut to create a new folder

Since Win7: Ctrl+Shift+N (thanks Google)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Priorities
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 27th Oct 2010 03:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Priorities"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"keyboard shortcut to create a new folder

Since Win7: Ctrl+Shift+N (thanks Google)
"

Seriously? It's about time (and that's one of the first compelling reasons I've heard to do the upgrade from XP).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Priorities
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Oct 2010 21:32 UTC in reply to "Priorities"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

how is a file system that is meant to work better for SSDs the same thing as WinFS?

Reply Score: 2

enough
by alax on Tue 26th Oct 2010 00:56 UTC
alax
Member since:
2010-10-26

Someone famous should assert 2TB ought to be enough for anybody

Edited 2010-10-26 00:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: enough
by Neolander on Tue 26th Oct 2010 04:25 UTC in reply to "enough"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Someone famous should assert 2TB ought to be enough for anybody

Almost did that some posts ago, about 4 PB though.

Reply Score: 2

Some things to fix from Windows 7
by blitze on Tue 26th Oct 2010 06:38 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

They could start with the file system. NTFS whilst having some good features needs to be more fragmentation aware. One of Windows Achilles heals is the file system fragmenting under heavy use and once at 10% the OS falls over.

They could then also improve Windows registry to be more self cleaning so that when I uninstall a program or update one - the registry cleans out the relevant entries. It would also be nice to have a simpler install system where programs only have 2 locations to put their relevant files - Program Files or the User Local (for user specific files). Having 4 or 5 locations as at present and then programs not cleaning themselves out when they are updated or removed is annoying.

Main gripes with Win 7 myself - all the other new features meh - what ever (Head in the Cloud).

Reply Score: 2

Link 404'ing
by bazmail on Tue 26th Oct 2010 07:42 UTC
bazmail
Member since:
2005-07-25

That msfkitchen links is down for me. Anyone able to mirror it? or repost the interesting bits here?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Link 404'ing
by vodoomoth on Tue 26th Oct 2010 11:42 UTC in reply to "Link 404'ing"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Same here, also 404. I guess some PR people contacted the site.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Link 404'ing
by NxStY on Thu 28th Oct 2010 14:11 UTC in reply to "Link 404'ing"
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12
A nice to have feature...
by Temcat on Tue 26th Oct 2010 12:35 UTC
Temcat
Member since:
2005-10-18

...would be a proper separation of user profiles from the system similar to how it's done in Linux.

Also, as an improvement, they could revert to the perfectly adequate XP-style network UI instead of the mess that debuted with Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A nice to have feature...
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Oct 2010 21:41 UTC in reply to "A nice to have feature..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I actually like the new network and sharing center. it makes it much easier to see the information I need to know up front and if I need to mess with any of the settings, I can get at them on the left side of the window.

Reply Score: 2

Will they fix the stupid Win32 API?
by axilmar on Tue 26th Oct 2010 13:05 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

It's the stupidest API ever. It contains an unlimited number of gotchas, especially for the GUI part.

No, I don't want to use .NET. I need to make the lightest possible applications.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It's the stupidest API ever. It contains an unlimited number of gotchas, especially for the GUI part.

No, I don't want to use .NET. I need to make the lightest possible applications.


Nice thought and I can dream about that, but I wouldn't count on it. There are just so many apps written to expect those bugs and gotchas that if you remove them you'd probably break at least 1/4 of all Windows apps if not more, not to mention pissing off the big corporate types with loads of shitty in-house software that hasn't been updated in the past two decades.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

They can offer Win32 as a layer on top of their really cool C-based GUI. Or they can run Win32 in a virtual machine.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

start using QT then, .net is the way forward.

Reply Score: 2

delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

You mean the way forward for Microsoft.

As for the rest of computing .NET is definitely not the way forward. I can never envisage the majority of Linux / Unix developers dropping the current languages to develop using mono / c# uggh.

I can see Go gaining more appeal though.

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I assumed a Windows environment.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

I already use Qt (it's Qt by the way, not QT; QT means Quicktime), but I don't like it very much. It's extremely bloated and it requires using tools that I don't fancy.

.NET is the way forward? hahaha.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

if you are developing for Windows it is the way forward.

As for your laughing... I think your opinion of .net is ridiculous.

it is probably one of the best frameworks around. Just because it is a Microsoft technology does not make it bad or evil or stupid.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

it is probably one of the best frameworks around.


Correction: it is one of the most bloated frameworks around. And it's Windows only (Mono does not contain all the .net classes).

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

how is it bloated? You want bloated, use Java. the .net framework is not bloated in any way.

Reply Score: 2