Linked by Kyuss on Mon 13th May 2013 01:31 UTC
Microsoft "Most people understand that Windows is used by a variety of people who have a variety of needs, ranging from corporate server to workstation to POS terminals to home PC and beyond. Most people accept that whenever Microsoft updates Windows, it has to balance the competing requirements to find some kind of workable compromise. There is however another set of competing requirements that many do not really register, even those that call themselves power users or are IT admins. It is a conflict between developers/programmers and Microsoft itself."
Thread beginning with comment 561405
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 13th May 2013 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

Yeah, because pointing out facts is astroturfing. Unlike the morons in this thread, or even the person who wrote the article, I've actually the technologies being discussed.

I've shipped deliverables using most of the technologies mentioned here and have followed their evolution. Is it astroturfing to point out that WPF, Silverlight, and WinRT share a similar lineage?

Or to correct falsehoods than WinRT is managed or is interoped using C++/CLI? Is that astroturfing?

Is it astoturfing to correctly point out the target demographic for Silverlight? All of this is independently verifiable. Silverlight was a RIA platform, it launched a long side RIA Services for .NET and had a scope that was different than what it ended up being.

Is it astroturfing to point out that XNA is terrible and has always been? Most people who actually used XNA, you know, the ones who would even give a damn, never liked it anyway and are glad to be on better middleware.

Unity, Unreal, or whatever are infinitely more supported and accepted by game developers and content creation tools. Its a more natural fit into the workflow. XNA was always deadweight and only on Windows Phone because Microsoft wasn't ready to put native code on WP7 and they needed a managed graphics API.

Had Microsoft had more time, I have no doubt that XNA would've never launched on the platform in favor of DirectX interop with WinRT which is more natural.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by segedunum on Mon 13th May 2013 13:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
segedunum Member since:

It's a long list of total utter bull straight out of the MSDN marketing department that addresses none of what the article is talking about.

I sincerely hope you're getting paid for this.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 13th May 2013 15:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

I think you're trying to be sincere, but along side the correcting of factual errors, you're also attempting to excuse the absurd decisions that microsoft has made in the past and push the blame on to the developers that actually used them.

It really does read like it was taken straight out of .Net Architect. I used to read that for the sheer humor of it. The other MS article with the MS kernel developer rant rings more true: MS is so afraid of screwing up existing customer's applications it just creates new parallel solutions to the same problems instead of adapting the existing one.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by moondevil on Mon 13th May 2013 15:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
moondevil Member since:

How is this different from any other OS commercial vendor?

Reply Parent Score: 4