Worldwide Telescope [modified]
-
How amusing. The website requires Flash. Microsoft couldn't even put the website together with their own Silverlight, eh? Marc
Thyme In The Country Interacx My Blog
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:41 PM
-
How amusing. The website requires Flash. Microsoft couldn't even put the website together with their own Silverlight, eh? Marc
Thyme In The Country Interacx My Blog
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:41 PM
I noticed that too. :)
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton -
How amusing. The website requires Flash. Microsoft couldn't even put the website together with their own Silverlight, eh? Marc
Thyme In The Country Interacx My Blog
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:41 PM
-
Please explain what you mean by that.
-
Please explain what you mean by that.
I doubt you'll get much. He's clearly confused already.
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton -
I doubt it. If it isn't intuitive then we need to fix it. - Chris Maunder
Ed.Poore wrote:
Clickety Police[^]
Yeah yeah. :) I got the link from the newsletter. I figured it didn't need a real clickety. :rolleyes: My bad. :) Marc
-
Please explain what you mean by that.
Michael Schubert wrote:
Please explain what you mean by that.
I can only imagine that he means that he thinks Flash is so crappy that it actually enhances Microsoft's half-baked products (actually, let's try 1/4 baked) like Silverlight. I certainly wouldn't make that claim, for the record. Marc
-
Please explain what you mean by that.
-
Michael Schubert wrote:
Please explain what you mean by that.
I can only imagine that he means that he thinks Flash is so crappy that it actually enhances Microsoft's half-baked products (actually, let's try 1/4 baked) like Silverlight. I certainly wouldn't make that claim, for the record. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
I can only imagine that he means that he thinks Flash is so crappy that it actually enhances Microsoft's half-baked products (actually, let's try 1/4 baked) like Silverlight.
I highly doubt that his mental state would allow such a complex thought process and conclusion.
-
the Worldwide Telescope need flash to work and flash is one of microsoft products so microsoft is trying benefit from its products even we it present a new one it requres one of it products. did you understand or shell i repeat
Thank you for enlightening me. As per now, I thought Flash was from Adobe and formerly Macromedia.
-
the Worldwide Telescope need flash to work and flash is one of microsoft products so microsoft is trying benefit from its products even we it present a new one it requres one of it products. did you understand or shell i repeat
Yes please shell repeat. I guess that your source of information is the same as "The capital of Australia is Milborn", right?
-
Thank you for enlightening me. As per now, I thought Flash was from Adobe and formerly Macromedia.
Did you miss the memo? Microsoft bought Adobe today. They are planning on rewriting Photoshop in WPF.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Michael Schubert wrote:
Please explain what you mean by that.
I can only imagine that he means that he thinks Flash is so crappy that it actually enhances Microsoft's half-baked products (actually, let's try 1/4 baked) like Silverlight. I certainly wouldn't make that claim, for the record. Marc
I haven't read any really good rants in ages... over to you, Squire Clifton, give us the full Suck Profile on Silverlight :)
-
I haven't read any really good rants in ages... over to you, Squire Clifton, give us the full Suck Profile on Silverlight :)
martin_hughes wrote:
give us the full Suck Profile on Silverlight
It's so bad it's not even worth a rant. ;P Marc
-
martin_hughes wrote:
give us the full Suck Profile on Silverlight
It's so bad it's not even worth a rant. ;P Marc
Spill the beans, Grizzly - or else I'll just tell everyone that Interacx is built on Silverlight technology ;) :p :)
-
Yes please shell repeat. I guess that your source of information is the same as "The capital of Australia is Milborn", right?
-
Spill the beans, Grizzly - or else I'll just tell everyone that Interacx is built on Silverlight technology ;) :p :)
Reference[^] These are the controls that Silverlight 2 Beta 1 provides: Button Calendar CheckBox DataGrid DatePicker GridSplitter HyperlinkButton ListBox RadioButton ScrollViewer Slider ToolTip WatermarkedTextBox OK, it's beta. But where's the ComboBox? Where's the RadioButton? Where's the GroupBox? Where's the Tab control? Where's the Menu bar, Toolbar, Statusbar? These are standard things any 3rd party vendor worth their salt provides. Look at DevExpress, Infragistics, Telerik, and a host of fly-by-night companies out there. What is Microsoft doing? All that money, talent, resources, and they produce junk. Take a look at their DataGrid example. Pathetic. You can't sort by clicking on the header, you can't move the columns, I'm actually amazed you can resize them! Maybe my expectations are too high, but it's ironic that you threaten to tell everyone that Interacx is built on Silverlight, because I was rather hoping that Silverlight would be the technology I could use to create web-based Interacx clients. I'm investing in Telerik, because certainly, I don't want to wait until Microsoft catches up in a couple years. They are so far behind in what other companies offer at this point, their only hope is to buy out their competitors. Marc
-
the Worldwide Telescope need flash to work and flash is one of microsoft products so microsoft is trying benefit from its products even we it present a new one it requres one of it products. did you understand or shell i repeat
I wonder what will happen if you repeat.
-
Did you miss the memo? Microsoft bought Adobe today. They are planning on rewriting Photoshop in WPF.
Are you some kind of spam bot? Anyway, you should continue copying and pasting replies from other members as your own, this way the number of typos in your posts will be drastically reduced.
-
Reference[^] These are the controls that Silverlight 2 Beta 1 provides: Button Calendar CheckBox DataGrid DatePicker GridSplitter HyperlinkButton ListBox RadioButton ScrollViewer Slider ToolTip WatermarkedTextBox OK, it's beta. But where's the ComboBox? Where's the RadioButton? Where's the GroupBox? Where's the Tab control? Where's the Menu bar, Toolbar, Statusbar? These are standard things any 3rd party vendor worth their salt provides. Look at DevExpress, Infragistics, Telerik, and a host of fly-by-night companies out there. What is Microsoft doing? All that money, talent, resources, and they produce junk. Take a look at their DataGrid example. Pathetic. You can't sort by clicking on the header, you can't move the columns, I'm actually amazed you can resize them! Maybe my expectations are too high, but it's ironic that you threaten to tell everyone that Interacx is built on Silverlight, because I was rather hoping that Silverlight would be the technology I could use to create web-based Interacx clients. I'm investing in Telerik, because certainly, I don't want to wait until Microsoft catches up in a couple years. They are so far behind in what other companies offer at this point, their only hope is to buy out their competitors. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Maybe my expectations are too high
Nope, you just need a healthy shot of realism - Microsoft's controls have always sucked! Sure, they suit the needs of Visual Basic people writing dull Excel/Access monstrosities, but anyone looking to do anything different/new/innovative has three choices a) Don't bother b) Invest time, effort and money into rolling new controls or adapting existing ones, or c) Buy third party stuff (and the Telerik stuff looks very nice. I might buy those). (From my playing around, however, option B seems to be a lot easier with the new WPF way of doing things, certainly easier than mucking around with overriding OnPaint events.) Microsoft, of course, don't care that the existing controls suck and that you have to jump through hoops or spend money to get around it - mostly because they don't care what you or I think... all they're interested in is selling overly-inflated software licences into big business and putting one over Apple, Sun, Oracle et al. Silverlight is exactly the same: they want media outfits to replace Flash as the defacto advertisement and video widget, they don't care that you might want to use it for your own purposes.