Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? (Score 1) 171 171

What! Windows 10 isn't sophisticated enough to figure out if it is running on a tablet?

It's smart enough that when I detach my keyboard from my Surface it switches to tablet mode. But it's not smart enough to know whether I want to be using keyboard and mouse or I want to be touching the screen. It used to be far more aggressive but that annoyed users when it tried to be 'smart' and switched when people didn't want it to.

Comment Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? (Score 1) 171 171

You're correct that they could theoretically do anything they want, however when Edge was first released to Insiders you couldn't access LocalHost files (aka .html files on your desktop or a local Apache server). The Public APIs have a checkbox for "local host" so I took that to mean that they were working from the public developer defaults in their compiler options.

Also since Edge is intended to run on all universal windows platforms I assume they're going to avoid API hooks which might not be available (like shell access or COM which might not be available on Windows Mobile). Adding hooks back into Win32 means they have to have those same hooks available to Hololens etc.

Comment Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? (Score 1) 171 171

So you agree that Microsoft does not have the technical ability to develop the Edge browser to run on Windows 7.

No. I very clearly stated that they technically can but they evidently chose not to write their new application for a product that has reached END OF LIFE and whose successor is FREE. That's a perfectly sane decision. "hey bob should we backport our new free product to people who refuse to accept our free upgrade?" "Fuck no!" "Yeah I didn't think we should either just checking."

It's as easy to backport Edge as it is to port Chrome from Linux to OSX. You don't see Apple releasing Safari for OS 9. Safari no longer works on OS 9 because supporting an OS which has been End of Life'ed is ridiculous.

Comment Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? (Score 1) 171 171

Microsoft Developed the Browser using WinRT which doesn't exist in Windows 7. Both Mozilla and Google had to rewrite their browsers to support Android and iOS. That didn't just magically happen they had to devote a lot of resources to using the Android and iOS APIs. This is no different. Microsoft is moving away from Win32. Win32 had a good 20+ year run but WinRT should eventually displace it. If they didn't write Edge for WinRT developers would cry foul and say "If WinRT isn't good enough for you why should we adopt WinRT?!" Edge is a Universal Windows Application so that means it runs on: Windows Desktop, Windows Mobile, Xbox One (this fall), Hololens and Windows IOT. In other words they did write it so that it could be easily portable... among windows 10 devices.

Comment Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? (Score 1) 171 171

Probably won't be. It's written currently for WinRT which obviously Windows 7 doesn't support and the reason Microsoft is giving you a *free* upgrade to Windows 10. So it would be a pretty radically different web browser, comparable to writing Safari for iOS vs OSX.

Comment Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? (Score 3, Interesting) 171 171

No it's written in WinRT which is to say it's sandboxed from the rest of the operating system using the WinRT app model. One of the annoying things about developing for WinRT is just how low privileged an application in WinRT is without any means to escalate except by explicit user permission. Shell access is impossible. COM is nearly non-existent. The only way to get data to and from the application in the WinRT framework is through a specific API contract that makes Soviet Russia look like a libertarian paradise by comparison.

In short, by writing Edge in WinRT they automatically picked up a lot of security features automatically. I would be really surprised if in its current state it could be used to modify system files.

Comment Re:Ram replacement? (Score 1) 161 161

Don't forget that when new technology is announced they always list the upper limits of a technology. So it has 1,000 times the potential of current best-case-scenario NAND but you won't see that 1,000 performance boost for 3 decades when they tap out the technology's maximum potential.

Comment Re:Is it going to matter much? (Score 1) 161 161

I'm rendering a project right now that has over a hundred instanced trees in a forest. So the forest is pretty much instanced, but each tree instance is around 1GB of memory and there are about 12 individual models. Then once I get into terrain geometry and villages and trains and that isn't even getting into the volumetric sparse oct-trees for like smoke from chimneys... etc.. anyway long story short 32GB is already gone *with* massive scale instancing.

Comment Re:Is it going to matter much? (Score 1) 161 161

If I can buy a TB of RAM that's maybe DDR4 speeds but not DDR5 speeds but at say somewhere between NAND and DRAM pricing that would be huge.

Also incredibly useful for something like a phone where you might want to shoot 4k video. The CPU would have a hard time processing that but if you buffered to say a 64GB cache and then processed you could shoot highspeed for a minute instead of 2-3 seconds.

Comment Re:bottlenecks (Score 1) 161 161

One of the articles says the initial products will be PCIe and NVMe.

The Toms Hardware Article is much better:

Intel indicated the new memory would connect to the host system via the PCIe bus, which is yet another reason that Intel and Micron have been vocal proponents of NVMe. The NVMe protocol was designed from the ground up for non-volatile memory technologies, and not NAND in particular. Now it is apparent that Intel and Micron were laying the groundwork for something more as they developed the new protocol.

Clearly this memory will necessitate new motherboards. But I would also love to see this on Nvidia cards.

Comment Re:Why do we need H.265? (Score 1) 184 184

MPEG-LA claims to have full H265 patent coverage, so it'll be decided in the courts if MPEG-LA can defend their H265 claims against HEVC Advance. My guess is that MPEG-LA knows what they've got and HEVC Advance is making a big show for shareholders. Technicolor already put it in their last quarterly earnings report that they had massive profit potential from their HEVC patents. To me this looks like a fake out by companies like Technicolor to trump up the value of their patents while MPEG-LA continues to do real business with reasonable terms. By the time Technicolor et-all's stock holders realize that they aren't making anything off of their ludicrous terms they'll have moved on to the next scam.

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.