|
According to the E-Mail I got tonight, it's out, so hurry to your next shop...!
|
|
|
|
|
NETRICSA: Secret Duke's skeleton has been found!
Sam: Dude, you've been hanging here FOREVER!
I really enjoyed Sam's one liners about Duke.
Beside that I would like to see Windows 7 and Visual Studio 10 this year.
|
|
|
|
|
My second write in would be this (after the openvz comment..)
So both answers are about improving performance with virtulization.
John
|
|
|
|
|
And yes, Windows 7, Office 14 and the new MS C++ compiler (couldn't care less for the IDE, though)
|
|
|
|
|
OMG.. It will just use more resources.. I'm completly satisfied with VS2008 
Win7 will be great.. less resource than Vista. Everything fine ;D
Don't try it, just do it! 
|
|
|
|
|
The VS2010 you can test in the VPC seems to use about the same resources as VS2008. The nice thing about VS2010 is that it uses WPF, which is hardware/GPU accelerated. That should make VS2010 smoother and faster in the long run than VS2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Rista wrote: The nice thing about VS2010 is that it uses WPF, which is hardware/GPU accelerated. That should make VS2010 smoother and faster in the long run than VS2008.
"Should" is my favorite English word.
|
|
|
|
|
As I'm moving my primary development away from the Microsoft ecosystem, OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is definitely something that I'm waiting for.
Even though the Xcode development tools and Objective-C language are drastically different than Visual Studio and C#, I have to say that once you get used to them, it's nice to be able to connect C, C++, and Objective-C/C++ without any interop layers or marshaling. If you want a 64-bit version of your software, just check the box in Xcode or add -m64 to your command line and "it just works."
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny...with .NET, I don't check anything for 32bit or 64bit...it just works on either without any hassle at all. Welcome to the beauty of the CLR. 
|
|
|
|
|
Now take your .NET code and interface with some managed C++ that has to work around differences between XP, Vista, 32-bit, and 64-bit, and it's no longer that easy. The software that I work on must take all of that into account. The simplest thing for us to do was mark all of the C# projects as "x86" which locks us to 32-bit executables. On 64-bit versions of Windows we run under the WoW layer and can compensate for it. Unfortunately this means we cannot take advantage of any of the 64-bit benefits.
I'm still looking forward to Snow Leopard.  My next graphics-related application will be written in C++ for the core, then Objective-C++ for the GUI. All 64-bit. The imagery that I'll be dealing with is around 50GB per file, for a single image. I'll probably port the C++ core to Windows and write the UI using WPF. It'll still have to be 64-bit though. "Dumbing down" the program to work in 32-bits is possible, but painful.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Rista wrote: Funny...with .NET, I don't check anything for 32bit or 64bit...it just works on either without any hassle at all. Welcome to the beauty of the CLR.
Discover the beauty of portability with native code.
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Leopard is definitely my number 1 for this year. At work, I have to program in C/C#/ASP.NET, but as soon as I get home, it's all Mac. I haven't had a PC at home for over 5 years, and I've loved every minute of it.
I think that Snow Leopard will be a huge hit this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul A. Howes wrote: If you want a 64-bit version of your software, just check the box in Xcode or add -m64 to your command line and "it just works."
Unless you use some nasty assumptions about pointer sizes 
Seriously, why do you think it is any different with Windows compilers?
|
|
|
|
|
Too true! I have seen (and fixed!) way too much code like that.
Flipping the switch in the VC++ compiler is easy enough, but you have to build two copies of everything; one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit Windows . OS X 10.5 is 64-bit at its core. There is no 32-bit version of the operating system to confuse things. The only reason to build things in 32-bit is for compatibility with older processors that don't support 64-bit.
So what version of Windows32XP64Vista are you supporting this week?
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul A. Howes wrote: The only reason to build things in 32-bit is for compatibility with older processors that don't support 64-bit.
And this is a bad thing somehow? You really should read some of Raymond Chen's articles about backward compatibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Did I say that compatibility was bad?
If you'd like me to read those articles, links would be helpful.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
He wrote so many articles about backward compatibility, here's the link [^] to search his blog.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul A. Howes wrote: but you have to build two copies of everything; one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit Windows . OS X 10.5 is 64-bit at its core. There is no 32-bit version of the operating system to confuse things.
I am confused now. If you don't build different versions, why do you have the compiler switch?
Paul A. Howes wrote: So what version of Windows32XP64Vista are you supporting this week?
I develop on 64-bit Server 08 and this is the only version I ever see.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: I am confused now. If you don't build different versions, why do you have the compiler switch?
As was stated in a post further up, the compiler switch exists for backward compatibility. Leopard (10.5) is the first version of the operating system to support 64-bit executables. If you're developing applications for Tiger (10.4) or earlier, then you have to compile for 32-bits. Since the default Xcode project settings assume this, you get 32-bit compiles by default.
This is not unlike Visual Studio assuming 32-bit XP as the default target for most application development.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: I develop on 64-bit Server 08 and this is the only version I ever see.
You're lucky. I develop desktop applications, not server applications. I cannot generally make that assumption. Walk into any Best Buy and half the computers will have 32-bit Vista installed and the other half, 64-bit. Most users do not know the difference, which means I either make both versions (32/64) of a product available, or I drop half of the potential customers. In some cases there are ways to work around the 32-bit limitations, but not always.
On Leopard I can assume 64-bit and know that only a few (<10%) users with older hardware won't be able to use it, just as you can assume that anyone using 64-bit Server 2008 can use your software.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
So again, how is it any different than Windows?
In Windows world you can choose to support i.e. only Vista and then you can worry only about 32-bit Vista executables which can work on 64-bit builds as well. If you want (or have to) support XP or Win2k you can do that as well, and I bet money it is much easier to support both Vista and Windows 98 than OS X and OS 9.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a feeling that you haven't worked with the Mac much, if at all, since the 1990's OS 9 doesn't exist any more, and hasn't for nearly 10 years. It used a completely different framework, programming language, and development tools. Five years ago, Apple kicked the PowerPC hardware to the curb and started using Intel Core technology. Every Mac running a G5 or Core 2 processor and Leopard (10.5) as the operating system is 64-bit. At this point, that covers a very large majority of the Mac users out there, which is nice for me as a developer.
My point is that I can choose to support 64-bit software and be reasonably assured that most of the installed user base can use it. On the desktop, 64-bit Windows is the exception, not the rule.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul A. Howes wrote: I have a feeling that you haven't worked with the Mac much, if at all
The feeling is right. I am too cheap to buy Apple hardware that gets obsolete in a couple of years
Paul A. Howes wrote: OS 9 doesn't exist any more, and hasn't for nearly 10 years.
Just as Windows 9x
Paul A. Howes wrote: It used a completely different framework, programming language, and development tools.
I know that and that's why I say it is much easier to support old versions of Windows than old versions of Mac OS.
Paul A. Howes wrote: Five years ago, Apple kicked the PowerPC hardware to the curb and started using Intel Core technology
Yep, which is one more reason to stay away from Apple if you ask me.
Paul A. Howes wrote: Every Mac running a G5 or Core 2 processor and Leopard (10.5) as the operating system is 64-bit.
Again, I don't see why it makes much difference. What percent of Apple users run Leopard 10.5? At my previous job, we were supporting even Win 98
and that was in 2007. Our users with 10 years old machines were using our software just fine. How easy would it be if we were on Mac? We would have had to support completely different hardware (PPC, Intel) and completely different software platforms (Mac OS 9, Mac OS X). With Wintel it was easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Since you like picking apart my posts, I'll return the favor.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: The feeling is right. I am too cheap to buy Apple hardware that gets obsolete in a couple of years
Macs don't cost any more than an equivalent PC. That's just a myth. Dig around on any of the hardware sites and you'll see comparisons of a MacBook Pro and an identical Dell. The price difference is usually around $50. One time I spec'd out a 17" Dell laptop and it was $600 more than the Mac. They don't get obsolete any faster than a PC. A good article to read: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html[^]
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Just as Windows 9x
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: I know that and that's why I say it is much easier to support old versions of Windows than old versions of Mac OS.
You are (purposely?) missing the point: NO ONE USES OS 9. There is no need to support it because it simply doesn't exist.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Yep, which is one more reason to stay away from Apple if you ask me.
Okay, this one makes no sense at all. The PowerPC architecture couldn't scale and it was expensive. When Apple switched to Intel, they were able to increase reliability and decrease price.
Honestly, I don't know what percent of Mac users have 10.5. If you want to shore up your argument you should find some statistics through Google. Your point about supporting Win98 is an over-generalization. Just because your company had that requirement doesn't mean everyone does. But, to answer your question, it's not that hard to support older hardware and OS revisions on the Mac. The OS insulates developers and users from hardware changes, as much as possible. Mac users are, generally speaking, better about updating the OS than Windows users, so there tends to be a lower limit to what a developer needs to support. Each release of Xcode comes with support for the current OS and the version before it.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul A. Howes wrote: Macs don't cost any more than an equivalent PC. That's just a myth.
True, but I never buy these PCs that are equivalent to Macs. I paid $400 for my home machine and there is no Mac equivalent for it (Mini is nowher near the HP machine I bought when it comes to power andd features and is still more expensive). I am sending this post from a Lenovo netbook that I paid $335.00. What is Mac equivalent for it? iPhone?
Paul A. Howes wrote: NO ONE USES OS 9. There is no need to support it because it simply doesn't exist.
How do you know it? Are you sure there are no people who bought their Macs 10 years ago and never upgraded? Or you simply ignore them?
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: True, but I never buy these PCs that are equivalent to Macs. I paid $400 for my home machine and there is no Mac equivalent for it (Mini is nowher near the HP machine I bought when it comes to power andd features and is still more expensive). I am sending this post from a Lenovo netbook that I paid $335.00. What is Mac equivalent for it? iPhone?
If buying cheap hardware with a severely limited useful life works for you, then I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. I configure system that will last me at least 5-6 years. My last PC is still going strong and will probably go to my nephews to use.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: How do you know it? Are you sure there are no people who bought their Macs 10 years ago and never upgraded? Or you simply ignore them?
A bit of both, actually. Supporting out-of-date hardware and operating systems is the bane of any developer who targets Microsoft's operating systems. Apple makes things a bit simpler. Yes, there is something of a planned obsolescence with Apple, but this results in fewer support issues for both software and hardware vendors. Customers end up paying in one of two ways: Either they pay for upgrades, or they pay for support when they don't want to upgrade. A practice that many Mac developers have embraced is that they keep the previous, unmaintained version(s) of a product around for those who won't upgrade their computer or OS.
Paul
A .NET developer who now drinks the Ruby and Cocoa Koolaid.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
