in

Blog By Bob

Blog by Bob

December 2004 - Posts

  • Microsoft Denies Ever Mentioning WinFS...

    Well, maybe that isn't the case, but as you remember, they did say that WinFS would not make it into Longhorn, nor would most other advancements, including security. Ok, I made the security part up, but that doesn't make it false. You'll remember the latest IE vulnerability , well I tested the latest public build of Longhorn and it isn't fixed in there. Longhorn is still beta shipping with a vulnerable version of IE and an older version of Media Player that has been replaced because of security issues.

     So, before we even get into *why* I made this post, we are looking at Longhorn, stripped bare, swiss cheese ridden as Windows XP, even though we were promised a 'rewrite' and weighing in at 4 times the memory usage sitting at idle and twice the CPU and GPU requirements. Ok, twice is being nice, but I am in a nice mood. Well, no, I am not. However, I am in my normal mood. At least it has a really cool Recycle Bin icon...

    Now, for the latest “Microsoft Miracle”, not only will WinFS not make it into the Longhorn client in 2006, it won't make it into Longhorn Server in 2007 nor is it looking like it will be in the Longhorn Client refresh, and I quote, “that is scheduled to follow a couple of years later”. Meaning, a couple of years after 2006, or in Microsoft terms, 2010. So no WinFS by 2010. And for those oldies reading, you will remember that WinFS or whatever it was called at the time was first promised to us in Windows DNA and “The Millennium Project“ way back when Windows 2000 Server was still called Windows NT 5.0.

    Hey Steve, guess that outsourcing to India isn't turning out as well as you expected huh?

  • New Oracle News

    Oracle 10g is now certified for use on OS X Server. Oracle is hoping to sell it to all 3 people running OS X Server...Bah Dum Dum...
  • The Laptop That Could...sorta

    I normally don't shop at Walmart, I think they are the spawn of the devil. Having said that, for people that really need to have the mobility of a laptop, but either can't afford, or can't bring themselves to spend the going rate on a latop, they have a really low price point on their entry level laptops. A fully functioning laptop, granted the specs aren't all that, is available for $498, without Windows though. That, my friends, is what I call inexpensive.

    Back to the whole specs thing though. The processor is a VIA C3 1 ghz part. For those of you that aren't the hardware freaks that I am, the VIA chips are actually Cyrix chips rebadged after VIA bought Cyrix. The performance of said chip is roughly that of a Celeron2 600mhz part, unless you plan on doing any gaming. The chip has no real FPU (floating point unit) to speak of. Coupling that with the onboard video which is most likely VIA's own S3 graphics technology and surely using shared memory, you will be lucky to play an older game like Quake3 at anything higher than 800x600.

    Also, the machine comes with only 128 megs of RAM, so I hope you are using Remote Desktop to do your coding, I don't want to be you if you are opening VS.NET 2003 on *that*, especially after taking into consideration at least 16 megs of that is going to the shared memory registers, might want to splurge and get another stick of RAM...

    The thing I finding interesting in a humorous sort of way is even after the whole 'agreement' (read:we pay you $20 million and you do what we asked) between Microsoft and Lindows to not call itself Lindows anymore, and the change to the Linspire branding, the Walmart site still lists the OS on the machine as “Lindows/Linspire”. So not only is Lindows display, which shouldn't be, it is also displayed first, before the current legal name. I guess Michael Robertson feels it is time for his next installment from billg...

  • How Do You Explain THIS to the Shareholders?

    Everyone knows that SCO (I won't link to the bastards) sued IBM and just about anyone else using Linux, including their grandmas. Well, ok, I made the grandma part up. Maybe.

    Any how, it is rumored that the fallout from the whole litigation process is that instead of making $10.3 million in SCOSource licensing like they did last year, this year they made $120,000. No, I did not misplace the comma.

    Once you do the math, that is a loss of ~99% of their licensing revenue. Granted the link goes to theinq, hence the word 'rumor'.

  • IE Rewrite revisited

    Obviously Mr. Ballmer didn't see my post offering to help rewrite Internet Explorer, for free mind you. *FREE* Hello? There is a new vulnerability out for Internet Explorer, the reigning champion of Windows vulnerabilities, and this one is very, very ugly.

    When I finish this blog, I am going to go download FireFox, and I am very bitter that I am being forced to download a third party application that replicates behavior that I paid for when I bought the OS because Microsoft blatanlty refuses to fix IE. This hodge-podge patch and go solution is obviously not working. Hello? Is anyone listening? And it isn't like this is an unpatched machine. I am running Windows 2003 server with the latest release candidate for Service Pack 1 installed, so it has all the added *security* features that Windows XP has in its latest Service Pack.

    To test your machine for vulnerability, go here and click on the link on the page. What is so ugly about this vulnerability that made me finally decide to stop using Internet Explorer? When you test your browser you will notice that even though the page is hosted by Secunia, and is Secunia servers, the Address Bar say “https://paypal.com”. *HTTPS* mind you. Not only that, but there is the nice little lock at the bottom of the screen that tells me my transmissions are secure, and it verifies that you are on paypal.com if you click it.

    I am not taking any chances this time, I am going to email steveb with this link so he has a better chance of seeing it this time...

    Oh, and if you are looking, there isn't a fix yet...

  • ASP.NET and Modal Forms, or, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

    I mentioned earlier that I ran into some interesting behaviors while making a web application for work. I've discussed them with various 'web folken', because if you ask anyone who knows me, you will find out I am more of a WinForms kinda guy, versus WebForms. Hopefully this will change since I am working on a smartclient application now, so hopefully I will become more of a SmartClient kind of guy...

    Anyhow, I decided some sample code would be best, you know, for those that want to play along. Noone would say that I don't play well with others...well, actually most would say that, but I don't believe them.

    When I first ran into some of these issues and brought up my concerns with the web guys, I was basically told that I was thinking too much like Mr. WinForms and not enough like Mr. ASP.NET, and that ASP.NET was not designed to behave in a manner appropriate to modal form usage. Now, all design issues aside, and whether or not modal forms were the best choice in my application(which I believe it was), the issue I have with that line of thinking is that ASP.NET is a tool for me to use to create web applications. A tool should not be a limitation to what I am able to do, it should be an extension of my will. It should allow me to do things I could not do without the tool.

    Ok, so the first thing we are going to do, obviously, is open up Visual Studio and start a new ASP.NET web project. We aren't going to think about any refactoring or coding standards, we are just going to try to get our learn on.

    Add a second web form to the project, and we'll just leave it called WebForm2. In WebForm1 add the following routine.

    public void DisplayModalForm(string url, string options)

      RegisterStartupScript(Guid.NewGuid().ToString()," var w=window.showModalDialog(\""+url+"\",null,\""+options+"\"); ");

    var w=window.showModalDialog(\""+url+"\",null,\""+options+"\");document.Form1.submit();

    }

    The reason for this snippet of code is that there isn't any real way to launch the modal form from server side ASP.NET, so we are going to use javascript to do it. Using RegisterStartupScript() allows us to at least keep the creation of the the javascript in our code behind, and because most people do not like to manually edit the HTML code that Visual Studio creates.

    Add a button to WebForm1 and add the following line to the Click event.

    DisplayModalForm("WebForm2.aspx","scrollbars:no;toolbar:no;location:no;menubar:no;status:no;titlebar:no;resizable:yes;dialogWidth:700px;dialogHeight:600px");

    Now for one of the oddities. Add a button on WebForm2 and launch the project. Click the button on WebForm2. Huh, I bet you didn't expect that now did you? When the modal form posts back, it does so by launching a new browser window instead of posting back to itself as normal. The remedy? It isn't pretty but it works.

    Add a third form to the project, once again keeping the default WebForm3 name. Take the button off of WebForm2 and change the html, adding the following line between the form tags.

    <IFRAME src="”WebForm3.aspx”" width="100%" height="100%" />

    Add a button to WebForm3 and relaunch the application. You will notice that the form posts back into the frame now, so no new window is opened. To close the form, add the following to the Click event of WebForm3.

    RegisterStartupScript(Guid.NewGuid().ToString()," window.close(); ");

    One of things I ran into that may or may not be of interest is when the modal form closed, I wanted to be able to post the main form back, the modal form was entering data that needed to be refreshed on the main page. This is actually pretty easy to do in retrospect, though it took awhile for me to find the answer. Remember, I never professed to be a web guy. Change the DisplayModalForm routine to the following.

    public void DisplayModalForm(string url, string options)

    {

      RegisterStartupScript(Guid.NewGuid().ToString()," var w=window.showModalDialog(\""+url+"\",null,\""+options+"\");document.Form1.submit(); ");

    }

    You'll notice that the code is the same, with the exception of the addition of the document.Form1.Submit(), which fires when execution resumes in the main form after the modal form closes, and reloads the main form to refresh the data.

    Who says ASP.NET doesn't like modal forms? Granted the code isn't the most straight forward type of solution, but it is very little code, and the code that was added was pretty straight forward. The only real disappointment is the necessary inclusion of an additional container form to hold our modal form from 'posting out'. I don't know what to blame that on, I would have to assume it is a behavioral issue with the .NET framework itself, but I don't have enough information yet to make that accusation.

    I don't mind a little additional work in order to have the advantages of modal forms, where appropriate. I know some programmers don't like modal forms, but it allowed my application to always stay on the main page, and to control data entry with out worry about page navigation disruptions. I think adding the modal form code was significantly easier than trying to control the application flow and most likely more consistent for that specific application, as well as allowing the application's user interface to be very neat and clean.

    Are modal forms always the best solution? Obviously not, but they shouldn't be ignored when they are.

  • What about Bob?

    I found an interesting read on Slashdot, Tim Bray has an article posted about the top 20 software people in the world. I was mildly surprised to find out I was not listed this year. Obviously he is *not* in the know...
  • ISA 2004 Book Arrives...

    Get out your creditcard and click here before they run out, after 5 months of delays they may not last long...

    Hey Tristan, didn't you promise me a copy when it comes out? ;)

  • Modal she wrote...

    Odd title for an odd subject. Over the next week or so I think I am going to have a running side rant about all things modal. Well, most likely all things modal in ASP.NET.

    I recently completed a project at work where I used Modal forms exclusively. As a matter of fact, you never actually leave the main form, it has the data summary on it, and you click various items to go to other areas or to add/update data, which is automatically refreshed on the main page.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that I did anything wonderful, I mainly plan on covering some of the advantages of doing things modally, some of the snags and ,depending who you ask, possible bugs in the way ASP.NET handles modal forms.

    Just so I am actually including something that can be considered content in this post, I will tell you the last gotcha I ran into, something that was actually quite surprising to me.

    After deploying my application, and various people running through a test run trying to break it before we actually started using it normally, I discover that PocketIE doesn't support the spawning of more than one browser window. Meaning of course, when you click the link to launch the modal window, PocketIE spins alittle, lets out a small giggle and ignores you.

    Hmmm...what exactly was the thought process here? I understand that Windows CE is embedded territory, and often needs to be “smallfootprint” and all that fancy jazz, but; number one: My handheld, and most new handhelds come with as much or more memory than the laptop I installed Windows XP on, granted I put more RAM on it, but it would have survived. It ran Windows 98 for years, could pop up as many windows as you like and had half the processor speed of my handheld. Number 2:Not *all* Windows CE devices are handhelds and small embedded devices. Some are Internet Appliances, Dumbish Terminals and other oddities. If I bought an Internet Appliance and it came with an OS that for some odd reason decided I only needed one browser at a time...This is ignoring of course that the “Embedded Internet Explorer“ those systems come with might be different than PocketIE, but I have my reservations...

    Anyhow, I think that is enough for today, along with my normal posts, assuming I find the inspiration for normal posts, I will be adding some more of my concerns and observations about the world of Modal...

  • Got Certs?

    I added a link to the Microsoft Certifications site where you can type in my MCP number (677633) and password (JoeWalsh) and have a look at the Microsoft certification's I have and the choices I have made for tests. If you would prefer the lazy way out, I copy and pasted the page...
  • Second Thoughts about FireFox

    I have had many conversations with Jayson about FireFox. Him asking me if I am using it yet. Me insisting that I don't want to replicate behavior that is already provided for free in Windows.

    I read something today that almost changed my mind.

    Yes, almost. It seems there is a new Internet Explorer patch out, a patch that shouldn't even be released yet as we are currently out of cycle for the month Microsoft patch. Sad that there need be a *Monthly* patch cycle, but I digress.

    It seems that Internet Explorer has a vulnerability that allows a bad person to remotely run code on your machine by being all ugly with an iFrame. I actually remember reading about this and mentioning it to Mike in November but thought nothing of it since I never actually saw a patch. It seems there are several patches now, and admitedly., the turn around time for a *solution* is not that bad.

    Well, solution might be a slight stretch, this new patch (MS04-040) actually supercedes an older patch (MS04-038) that was released in...October of this year. Read that again. This new patch patches a vulnerability found in code that was release 2 months ago by Microsoft.

    That isn't even the end of it. This patch is a hack of the old patch and doesn't include any fixes that update the same files included in this patch, so if you have your updates updated, you will break them by installing this patch, and must instead follow the directions in another KB article.

    There is some good news, and what makes it so I am still not in too much of a hurry to install FireFox, Windows 2003 and Windows XP SP2 are not affected. Now, this is very good news admittedly, but I have one *huge* question for Mister Ballmer. He is the one running MS now that Bill is out on sabatical, yes?

    What percent of machines that have Windows installed on them are XP SP2 and Windows 2003? Fourteen Percent? I am trying to be nice with that number, I would say I am thinking the truth is probably much lower.

    The reason for my question is, if this percentage is so low, why is Microsoft not releasing a similarly patched version of IE for Windows 2000, NT 4 and WIndows 9x? And, I don't want to hear any of that heartfelt drivel about how this or that product is no longer supported. I think someone needs to step up to the plate for once in their existance and take some responsibility for that which they created. Were it not for the code you *charged* people for, and the *billions* you have made off of it, this wouldn't be an issue.

    Fix it.

    Hell, or don't, but if you want to wash your hands of it so badly, hand me a cd with the source code, make me and 13 coders of my chosing sign a disclosure and let someone else fix your mistakes. I'll do it for free, no questions asked, all I would request is a tag line in the Help|About that says

    Version 6.3.xxxx
    Cipher Strength: 128-bit
    Product ID:xxxxx-xxx-xxxxxxx-xxxxx
    Update Versions: Fixed by Bob

    I don't necessarily think that is so much to ask. You can reach me by using the Contact link at the top of this page. Thanks.

  • Don't shoot the Beta Messenger...

    I was reading Mike's post about AIM (and no, I *won't* link to AIM), and started thinking about the new MSN Messenger 7.0 beta we are using. I have always leaned towards using Microsoft's Messenger, I don't care much for Yahoo Messenger. I, as well as many others, have a deep hatred for anything AOL.

    One day I promise to blog about my thoughts on AOL, and the general tendency by similar thinking companies/individuals to so often cater to the lowest common denominator, but for the time being I am trying not to be too abrasive/offensive in too short of a period of time.

    Anyhow, getting back on topic, there is one main *cool* feature in the new 7.0 version Messenger that really excited me, and yes, I realize that Trillian and probably some others had it first, but *I* use Messenger, so it is relevant to me...and besides, only the paid version of Trillian has it...

    In a previous version of Messenger, they added the ability to save your chat logs in xml format, with a seperate file per contact. This was sort of cool, but there really wasn't any use in it, and you would have to go manually find the file and open it if you wanted to look at it. Fast forward to version 7.0...

    In version 7, they added a nice little defining feature, when you open a new chat window with someone you have spoken to previously, it shows you in the window the last thing you spoke to them about. Granted, this may not excite some people, but noone would argue that I am very easily amused...

  • Politically incorrect, possibly disturbing, but surprisingly fun...

    A coworker sent me a link to JFK Reloaded, and my first thought was “Surely they didn't...”, of course my second thought was “where is the download link?” After downloading it, I was kind of appalled...you couldn't actually pull the trigger unless you bought the game.

    Well, I am pretty picky about where I use my debit card online, so I figured that was the end of that...then, BAM!, Paypal button catches the corner of my eye, 6 minutes and nine dollars later, I am perched up in the window, anxiously awaiting the motor pool to turn the corner...

    Politically incorrect? Surely. Disturbing? Mostly. Surprisingly fun? After the first rum and coke, I didn't stop giggling for at least thirty minutes...although my scores are horrible. The goal is to complete an *accurate* reenactment, my goal is more that of a first person shooter. I find that if I hit the driver first, the cars pile up and I can pick people off for quite sometime before the game catches on that I am not playing by the rules...

    I would put up a few screenshots, but I most likely already offended more people than is my quota for the week...

More Posts
Copyright © :: BlogByBob.com
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems