We've already got the task bar, which pretty much works like tabs. Plus with the task bar you get the novel thing of being able to place multiple windows side by side, whereas with tabs and mdi interfaces in general this ability seems to be generally limited and/or removed lately (unless you open a new window of course, but this renders tabs useless)

How is this a novel step forward?

It's dangerous to go alone! Take this.

Maybe we can get the difinitive answer for the meaning of life? :)

First, when they shut down, we saw the screenshots. Now, we're seeing the gameplay footage.

I'm quitely (well not so quietly now that I'm talking about it) suspecting that we may next see the leaked marketing materials, then the playable demo, then behold! The laid off staff members actually finished the game! Here it is in all its glory!

Given the fact that this game has been one of the most famous vapourware titles for over a decade, could this simply be a marketing stunt leading up to it's release?

... oooh thankyouverymuch

If you ever find such a human society, can you let us know? Thanks.

REad the blog, it's actually quite critical. Get a few posts in and it's enough to put you off Canon cameras entirely.

<quote>Not a lot to go on, though as a freebie, XP doesn't do jack with that extra gig of RAM...You could put in 100gigs and it won't use any more than 3 (less you're using the 64 bit version, iirc).</quote>

Just FYI, the reason for this is because with 32 bits, you're system is limited to 2^32 bits of address space = 4GB of memory in total, which has to include both RAM and the memory on your graphics card.

So in many cases, users with 4GB of RAM will only see 3GB becuase they have a 1GB graphics card. It follows that if a user only have a 512MB graphics card, then they will see (and XP will use) 3.5GB RAM.

This is not a design flaw for XP, it's a limitation if the 32 bit architecture. Switching to 64 bits solves this because then your total address space increases to 2^64 = 16EB. Which ought to be enough for anyone ;-)

Not true. ST:TNG #83 - Final Mission. Captain Dirgo.

... because all a company needs to do right is have a charismatic leader.

</sarcasm>

I'm a big fan of moving as many of my applications into virtual machines as I can, especially ones that are rarely used and/or have a significant system overhead.

As a result I have several VMs powered by Virtual Box, and very minimal apps installed on my host OS. One for development, one for multimedia, one for internet.

It's a good setup, only it still has a long way to go before it can be used for games. DX or 3d graphics rendering aside, another problem it has that I haven't found too much discussion on is the audio latency. On Virtual Box it absolutely sucks. In fact there's about a half a second lag between the guest and host OS/s, and we're talking straight Windows XP on Windows XP, no esoteric OSes or drivers in play here. VMWare Workstation nails this quite nicely, and VMware server is only slightly behind (because it has to route all video and audio through a network socket)

Having said that however, it's still an excellent product, and I highly recommend it for anything that isn't realtime. It's much lighter than VMware (both server and workstation. Hell, even VMware player) and its system overhead is very minimal.