Win32 API and .Net Future
-
Judah Himango wrote: Then ask yourself this. Was Win32 revolutionary? i'm not sure that says a damned thing about whether or not WinFX will be revolutionary. you get back to me in three years when it's finally out. if it hasn't been replaced by four or five other Brand New Revolutionary Technologies, i'll concede. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: back to me in three years when it's finally out Oh, you optimist you! :) Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
-
What about one big one...
Cost!
Manual transmissions are cheaper in 3 ways: :bob: Better gas mileage (especially at constant speeds, you aren't really doing any shifting, so automatic is just deadweight) :bob: Cheaper purchace price (usually a car with automatic is more expensive than the exact same model with standard) :bob: Service. Ever had to have an automatic transmission replaced? :eek: I have... and then my next car was a manual. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
Navin wrote: Better gas mileage (especially at constant speeds, you aren't really doing any shifting, so automatic is just deadweight But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - if you know how to use it. Navin wrote: Cheaper purchace price (usually a car with automatic is more expensive than the exact same model with standard And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. Navin wrote: Service. Ever had to have an automatic transmission replaced? I have... and then my next car was a manual To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end if I remember correctly ( and I'm really not sure I had 3 or 4 different ones installed). And I was working on the clutch every 3 months - and thats expensive. Maybe it is just luck or whatever but I have NEVER had to replace a auto in any car I have ever owned. I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It has been completly restored to factory specs and doesn't get driven much anymore but the drive train is as solid as a rock. If you take care of them - they take care of you. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
-
Judah Himango wrote: Then ask yourself this. Was Win32 revolutionary? i'm not sure that says a damned thing about whether or not WinFX will be revolutionary. you get back to me in three years when it's finally out. if it hasn't been replaced by four or five other Brand New Revolutionary Technologies, i'll concede. Software | Cleek
Perhaps we're using the wrong terms here. Maybe 'unique' is better suited for now, until 3 years down the road we'll see whether it is revolutionary. ;-) I believe it already is revolutionary because it is the first all-managed OS core API *and* it is replacing an API that has been used for over a decade (!!). That alone makes it a noteworthy changing of the guard in my book, something that seperates this from spin and other so-called revolutionary technologies. #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Once again another idiot has prooved that axiom. When jumping to conclusions, there is an underlying agenda that needs to be propogated. I called into question your lack of logic in jumping from a statistic that 67% of all Googlers use XP to state that the majority of all computers run XP(which is the point you were trying to make). Go dig up more data and apply some logical analysis for backing up your arguments. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I think people should be required to have an operator's permit to use the internet. John Simmons
I pointed out some sample data, a majority of the billions of users worldwide that access google are running XP or 2k. You pointed out your sample data, 2 computers in your basement that don't use google and don't run XP or 2k. :rolleyes::laugh: I'm not saying 67% of all computers in the world run XP or 2k. The point I've been making is that Microsoft's operating systems have been widely adopted at a rather fast pace; XP has been out only a few years now and it's by far a majority of the internet connected end-user market. Which brings me to the point that Longhorn probably will be adopted quickly too unless Microsoft loses their monopoly. #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Judah Himango wrote: That said, I do agree developers will not develop Longhorn-specific software until a vast majority of machines can run their software, or until emulation software or alternative runtimes ala Mono can run XAML+Avalon on multiple OSes, both of which are very likely to happen. Chances are the data you showed is for the US only. And it is skewed, these results assume the computers have an Internet connection. This may be true for US, Europe, and other developed countries, but for emerging markets, this is certainly not the case. And a lot of the XP usage is probably people upgrading from toy OSes like 95/98/Me. I doubt Longhorn is such a monumental change. Now if XAML+Avalon ends up getting back-ported to other OSes, then I can see developers using it. But to develop something Longhonr-specific (until 10+ years into the future, when everyone finally upgrades) is ludicrous. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
I believe the statistics shown on Google Zeitgeist are global. Regardless, in all honesty, who is marketing their software to users without internet access in 3rd world countries? #include "witty_sig.h"
-
Navin wrote: Better gas mileage (especially at constant speeds, you aren't really doing any shifting, so automatic is just deadweight But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - if you know how to use it. Navin wrote: Cheaper purchace price (usually a car with automatic is more expensive than the exact same model with standard And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. Navin wrote: Service. Ever had to have an automatic transmission replaced? I have... and then my next car was a manual To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end if I remember correctly ( and I'm really not sure I had 3 or 4 different ones installed). And I was working on the clutch every 3 months - and thats expensive. Maybe it is just luck or whatever but I have NEVER had to replace a auto in any car I have ever owned. I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It has been completly restored to factory specs and doesn't get driven much anymore but the drive train is as solid as a rock. If you take care of them - they take care of you. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
Richard Stringer wrote: But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - ... I'd say the better argument for a manual at cruising speed, besides the weight, is that in an automatic you are always wasting power in the torque converter. Even if you're just cruising along, the torque converter is still turning fluid. And in most manuals (besides old school ones, or specialty ones like your vette), 5th gear is an overdrive ratio. Richard Stringer wrote: ... if you know how to use it. I agree on this part. But most people don't know how to use an auto either. They'll just mash the pedal when they want to go faster, and hit the brakes when they want to slow down. Complete waste. Whereas, most people in a manual will just coast, or let the drivetrain slow them down when there's no real need to brake. Richard Stringer wrote: And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. This is a good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the overall cost of owning an automatic. Sure, you've had good luck. Most people I know haven't. And when autos die, they are expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end Yeah but that's different because it's a specialty car. 375 HP? Wasn't driven by an old lady? I wonder why you kept blowing clutches. And if it had an auto, you probably would have kept smoking the torque converter, which would have been a lot more expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It's also a heck of a lot newer than your vette. Lots of guys I know (lots) used to have built up Mustangs making 300-400 HP or more at the wheels, and these cars saw lots of drag racing (at the strip), and they didn't se
-
Richard Stringer wrote: But so is a manual in this case. And an overdrive auto tranny could possible exceed a manual tranny in MPG at crusing speeds. Depends on the type of terrain. On flat ground the auto would be better - on hilly ground the manual - ... I'd say the better argument for a manual at cruising speed, besides the weight, is that in an automatic you are always wasting power in the torque converter. Even if you're just cruising along, the torque converter is still turning fluid. And in most manuals (besides old school ones, or specialty ones like your vette), 5th gear is an overdrive ratio. Richard Stringer wrote: ... if you know how to use it. I agree on this part. But most people don't know how to use an auto either. They'll just mash the pedal when they want to go faster, and hit the brakes when they want to slow down. Complete waste. Whereas, most people in a manual will just coast, or let the drivetrain slow them down when there's no real need to brake. Richard Stringer wrote: And considerably less resale value. What you may loose on one end you get back on the other. Even more important is that with a manual tranny you limit the number of prople that will even look at the vehicle on resale lowering the resale value even more. This is a good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the overall cost of owning an automatic. Sure, you've had good luck. Most people I know haven't. And when autos die, they are expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: To each his own. The last car I owned with a manual tranny ( other than a couple of off road jobs ) was a 65 Corvette. It had a manual 4 speed ( L88 ) 327 CI V8 375 HP and a 2.75 rear end Yeah but that's different because it's a specialty car. 375 HP? Wasn't driven by an old lady? I wonder why you kept blowing clutches. And if it had an auto, you probably would have kept smoking the torque converter, which would have been a lot more expensive to replace. Richard Stringer wrote: I presently own a 93 TBird Super coupe with a 4 speed auto with overdrive with 121K on it and the tranny is fine - and it has been drove hard and fast. It's also a heck of a lot newer than your vette. Lots of guys I know (lots) used to have built up Mustangs making 300-400 HP or more at the wheels, and these cars saw lots of drag racing (at the strip), and they didn't se
Chris Richardson wrote: I'd say the better argument for a manual at cruising speed, besides the weight, is that in an automatic you are always wasting power in the torque converter. Even if you're just cruising along, the torque converter is still turning fluid. And in most manuals (besides old school ones, or specialty ones like your vette), 5th gear is an overdrive ratio. Not really true. Below is a article from the latest "Racing Tech" a mag fro drag race builders: "Race car builders often consider the Powerglide first because of its light static weight, strong build qualities, and relatively low rotational mass. A typical Powerglide often weighs about 100 pounds (plus or minus 10 pounds, depending on the equipment and whether it has a direct-drive pump or a torque converter). Comparatively, a three-speed manual Muncie or Saginaw transmission can weigh 30 to 40 pounds more than a direct-drive Powerglide when the flywheel and clutch are included. Lightening those transmissions, combined with the expense of a racing clutch, make the Powerglide an economical winner in many cases." many drag racers are going to autos because they are faster than manuals and are also easier to handle for the driver - no more missed gears costing them a race. Also many off road racers are going to autos also. Chris Richardson wrote: This is a good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the overall cost of owning an automatic. Sure, you've had good luck. Most people I know haven't. And when autos die, they are expensive to replace. I just did a quick poll in the office - 6 guys 2 girls - not counting myself. No one had a manual - the 2 girls say they can't even drive one - one person has ever had to replace a tranny. That was in an 88 Chevy Surburban bought used for 1800.00 and had 154000 miles on it. Cost him about 900.00 in parts ( junkyard) and labor. Also modern trannys are almost all warranted for 100000 miles. Chris Richardson wrote: Yeah but that's different because it's a specialty car. 375 HP? Wasn't driven by an old lady? I wonder why you kept blowing clutches. And if it had an auto, you probably would have kept smoking the torque converter, which would have been a lot more expensive to replace. Nope - no old ladies :) But I had competition clutchs on that sucker - racing parts. Also have fond memories of adjusting the lifters every 3 weeks and having to cut a hole ( a small one ) in the wheel well in order to reach
-
joshfl wrote: almost had to write sum hate mail here. joel ought to stick to software. there is SOooo many reasons this statement is wrong. What are they ? A good modern automatic is in many ways BETTER than a manual transmission in normal driving. The only situation I can think of when its not is when pulling a heavy trailer. There may ba a case for debate about driving in bad weather but that is more a function of antispin antilock technology and not the tranny. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. c) Control of power As navin said, your choice of power, downshift / upshift at will to easily get to the rpm of your choice and squeeze those horse outta that block. Thats not all, but all i have time for now. just saw the replies in this thread this morning and have work to doo.. but alas another auto apologist, i cannot let this stare me in the face w/ no response. (ps, i just glanced and saw some of the other threads touched on TC and reliability.. so some of this may be reiterating what was already said.) blah
-
a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. c) Control of power As navin said, your choice of power, downshift / upshift at will to easily get to the rpm of your choice and squeeze those horse outta that block. Thats not all, but all i have time for now. just saw the replies in this thread this morning and have work to doo.. but alas another auto apologist, i cannot let this stare me in the face w/ no response. (ps, i just glanced and saw some of the other threads touched on TC and reliability.. so some of this may be reiterating what was already said.) blah
joshfl wrote: a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? Well yes in a way. The power loss thru a converter is less than 3%. Thats about what you would get by having tires deflated by 1.6 lbs at racing speed. Power steering robs more power than your converter - by far. joshfl wrote: b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. Thats BS and you know it. It may have had a grain of truth 30-40 years ago but not with modern trannys. Its like arguing ( as NASCAR ) that carbs are better than fuel injection. OR that manual steering is better than power steering. Are ABS better than the older braking systems? I have NEVER had to replace a tranny in any of my vehicles - manual or automatic. Good maintainince will work on both. The future is here and it is computer controlled - brakes and transmissions and engines. The driver just has to point and go - well almost :) joshfl wrote: ) Control of power As navin said, your choice of power, downshift / upshift at will to easily get to the rpm of your choice and squeeze those horse outta that block. This is the area that a auto really out does a manual. A good computer controlled auto racing tranny will outperform 99% of the drivers out there. And you ALWAYS have the option of shifting when you want to - its just that the tranny is usually better at it then a human driver. Thats why more and more racers are going in that direction. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
-
joshfl wrote: a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? Well yes in a way. The power loss thru a converter is less than 3%. Thats about what you would get by having tires deflated by 1.6 lbs at racing speed. Power steering robs more power than your converter - by far. joshfl wrote: b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. Thats BS and you know it. It may have had a grain of truth 30-40 years ago but not with modern trannys. Its like arguing ( as NASCAR ) that carbs are better than fuel injection. OR that manual steering is better than power steering. Are ABS better than the older braking systems? I have NEVER had to replace a tranny in any of my vehicles - manual or automatic. Good maintainince will work on both. The future is here and it is computer controlled - brakes and transmissions and engines. The driver just has to point and go - well almost :) joshfl wrote: ) Control of power As navin said, your choice of power, downshift / upshift at will to easily get to the rpm of your choice and squeeze those horse outta that block. This is the area that a auto really out does a manual. A good computer controlled auto racing tranny will outperform 99% of the drivers out there. And you ALWAYS have the option of shifting when you want to - its just that the tranny is usually better at it then a human driver. Thats why more and more racers are going in that direction. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
a) Available power. Torque converter steals power. You will always get more of your engines power to the wheels w/ a manual transmission, than w/ an auto setup, due to the torque converter. Care to dispute that? Richard Stringer wrote: Well yes in a way. The power loss thru a converter is less than 3%. Thats about what you would get by having tires deflated by 1.6 lbs at racing speed. Power steering robs more power than your converter - by far. So essentially, there is no dispute here. Let me explain. Even as you provide irrelevant details, you admit, less available power due to torque converter. Why you ask are the details you mentioned irrelevant? Power Steering comes on cars w/ both auto transmission, and manual transmissions correct? And, you could reduce your tire pressure on a manual transmission or an automatic transmission, correct? Sure both of these things you mention will effect the available power. BUT, may I point out that these things would effect available power on EITHER configuration equally and have nothing to do w/ the debate of manual vs. auto transmissions. Do you not understand power steering takes away power from both auto. or manual tranny cars, and how that detail you provided is irrelevant to the dispute at hand, as well as your tire pressure assertion?? b) Reliability. A manual trannie has less moving parts, and will last twice as long as its automated counterpart in the same conditions. How many times have you and/ or your friends rebuilt auto trannys in your life time?? Compare that to the amount of manual trannie repairs you can think of. Now, which ones need repair more often ? If you properly care for your manual trannie, it will outlast your car. Richard Stringer wrote: Thats BS and you know it. It may have had a grain of truth 30-40 years ago but not with modern trannys. Its like arguing ( as NASCAR ) that carbs are better than fuel injection. OR that manual steering is better than power steering. Are ABS better than the older braking systems? I have NEVER had to replace a tranny in any of my vehicles - manual or automatic. Good maintainince will work on both. The future is here and it is computer controlled - brakes and transmissions and engines. The driver just has to point and go - well almost BS? 30-40 years ago?? LOL. I think your bias is showing clear now. Auto has MORE moving parts. No BS involved. Care to dispute? The more computer controlled it gets, the more service frig