Gregarius » éléments par Chris Boss

éléments par Chris Boss

There are many reasons for the recent PC sales slump

Publié: avril 14, 2013, 9:33pm CEST par Chris Boss

Windows 8 is not the direct cause for poor PC sales, and to suggest this is simply sensationalism. True, the operating system received cool reception from some people, but most don't realize that Microsoft had little choice to do what it did. The company distributed the first Preview during the BUILD developer conference in autumn 2011, and I immediately recognized what was going on. Windows 8 is all about touch and mobile. Mobile touch devices are replacing computers among many consumers. Microsoft likely saw this and had to do something. That something is Windows 8. I discuss this consumerization of the PC market in my late-March BetaNews story.

What some people fail to appreciate is that a PC is more than a consumer device. Windows is more than a mobile operating system. It is very complex, designed for heavy-duty work. Microsoft had one of two choices: Create a totally new operating system for mobile and leave Windows as is; merge a mobile operating system into Windows so it is a hybrid. That the company chose the latter is ingenious, but risky. Likely we won't know until years from now whether or not Microsoft wisely, but it is a noble undertaking nonetheless.

But I think one should differentiate between the problems Windows 8 faces and the problems the PC market is facing. They are two different things, which simply overlap.

The fallout of the PC market is long overdue and should have been expected. Why?

PCs haven't changed much over the last 10 years. Yes, they may have slightly better CPUs, a bit more RAM and bigger hard drives, but they really don't offer all that much more for users. This is likely why many businesses still use Windows XP. Face it, nearly 40 percent of business PC's still run XP and that is three OS generations back. Current PCs don't offer all that much more than XP computers and with the right software a XP computer could last another 10 years. While consumers will throw away perfectly good electronics for the latest fad, businesses can ill-afford this. Consumers are moving towards mobile, so Microsoft has little choice but to push mobile and touch.

Windows Mobile Devices face some Problems

The next problem has to do with the switch from desktops to mobile. Mobile devices are more expensive. Most low-cost Android devices (less than $100) are very, very limited. The better mobile devices start at the price level of a cheap PC. But PCs offer more and require more, so adding touch to PC's has challenges. Modern laptops can be upgraded with new memory, hard drives and batteries, but most mobile devices (tablets) cannot be, not even memory or batteries. Look at the iPad. It has the worse rating for repair or upgrading. It is a throw away device and it costs $500!

The Windows world is different. Moving to mobile is not easy and has many challenges and this first generation of Windows 8 devices is simply testing the waters to see what sticks and what doesn't. So what is sticking and what is not?

Two issues come to the fore. First, x86 backward compatibility. This is critical and must be taken into consideration. Why? Because the business market demands it. Consumers may tolerate the lack of backward compatibility, but businesses won't. So time will tell how well Windows RT does and it may well succeed with consumers, but the second problem I believe has been more critical and that is Price.

This may be why Lenovo is doing so well, while other PC makers are not. Lenovo caters to lower price brackets quite well. I recently bought a Windows 8 laptop and the ones with touch were just too expensive, so deciding to opt for one without touch I simply tried to buy something that gave me more for my money. I ended up with a Lenovo laptop, 15.6-inch screen with decent specs and only for $299 at Best Buy online. I am a software developer and even to me, price matters.

The non-Microsoft mobile market is being broken up into two sectors. The high end (iPad, Google Nexus, etc.) and the low-end (Android devices in the $100 or less range). For Windows devices, the ones that make Windows 8 shine are all high-end products and with a poor economy, they just aren't selling well. I purchased a Windows 7 tablet (and upgraded to Windows 8) , but only because it was on sale for $300 off (originally $699, but on sale for $399), which was my ExoPC.

The shakeout in the PC market may have more to do with a saturated market and prices. Lenovo may be one of the few PC makers who see this. Acer and Asus saw this in the Netbook hay-day, but Netbooks fell out of favor. Rather than lowering prices, they kept trying to find ways to raise the prices on Netbooks. But one thing was for sure. Price mattered then and still does.

Windows 8 isn't to Blame

To blame the PC sales woes all on Windows 8 is wrong and not fair. The entire industry has to take some share of the blame and with the economy problems, doesn't anyone just simply ask the question, why not help people save money if possible. That is what I did for my customers when I use to do consulting and custom programming. I tried to find ways to extend the life of their computers and ways to use less expensive equipment. I have seen some of my customers continue to use DOS applications I developed for them for as long as possible, far beyond what most would have expected.

The price for touch needs to come down. Just look at the prices for touch-enabled monitors. I found a great deal on a 22-inch touch-enabled monitor that supports two touch points only and uses an optical system, rather than capacitive. I got the monitor for $249 and it works great with Windows 7 and touch. Most touch monitors for use with Windows 8 cost $500 or more. Way too expensive.

Many manufacturers or retailers push HD displays and 10-point touch on Windows mobile devices and you can't touch (pardon the pun) one of these for less than $500 and some are in the $800 or more range. No matter what anyone thinks, price matters. This may be why Apple came out with the iPad mini (not only smaller size, but also price) and they also sell the previous generations of iPad for a discount. Some buyers just want a fair deal, especially businesses.

The PC Market is Changing

Computers will likely continue to decrease in sales and will gravitate more towards business users. That's where PCs really got their start, as business tools.The desktop PC is not going anywhere, it is just they may find their nitch with business users rather than consumers. Sales likely will continue to drop, but this should be expected. That is not Microsoft's fault, nor Windows 8. Consumers want ease of use, smaller devices, portable devices so new markets will result for non-PC devices, whether it be tablets, bigger smart phones or streaming media devices.

Tablets are the rage right now, but here price is what will really matter in the long run. Windows OE's need to target the $200 price point for a 7-inch tablet running real Windows 8 (not RT). That is the sweet spot for Windows tablets. They don't need to be high definition or state of the art, but just sound mobile devices. Some business users will demand more powerful tablets, but many could do a lot with less. Simply put, price matters even with tablets.

The Windows 8 x86 Advantage

Backward compatibility is one of Windows biggest strengths and needs to be brought to the fore.I understand the reasons for Windows RT and ARM devices, but Windows x86 has something far more valuable and that is backward compatibility.

One company I would watch carefully is Intel. Do not underestimate the mighty chipmaker. Intel is on the right track. The Atom SOC (system on a chip) line continues to get better and better with each new generation, with more power and better battery life. While a bit expensive, Intel's StudyBook concept is on the mark. The company even has its own app store (for low-resolution devices like Netbooks) called AppUp, which also targets the current market needs, encouraging developers too.

Software developers are partly to blame for the state we are in. Windows has had touch for some time now and Windows 7 is nearly as powerful with touch as is Windows 8, but few developers target touch in Desktop apps. Now give me a low-cost Windows 8 (or 7) seven-inch tablet and I would be able to start writing apps for it immediately -- and they can run on Windows XP as well, but taking advantage of touch when it is there.

Software needs to be better, more dynamic. It is possible to write software that dynamically adjusts to the system it runs on. Call it "smart" software if you will and Windows is well-suited to doing this. Software for Windows needs to be designed for multiple versions of Windows from XP to Windows 8, dynamically changing itself based on the version. Software needs to tap into the core WIN32 APIs so it can perform better with less hardware, with a smaller footprint. Don't think this is possible? I work with a development system that can do this, and the entire development system is only about 20MB in size.

The Windows operating system has some amazing core features that allow software to be truly dynamic. For example, one can actually poll the operating system DLLs to see what features and APIs are available and use different APIs on different versions of Windows as needed. Yes, Windows software can be written to be dynamic, smart if you will.

I see Windows 8 as a positive step forward, but I still appreciate the value of backward compatibility. It is cost-effective. I am still excited about Windows 8, but want to push the Desktop side to its limits, which has not seen its full potential yet. While the Modern UI side of Windows 8 may appeal to consumers, the Desktop side of Windows 8 is still alive and has yet to be fully tapped by developers. The possibilities for the Desktop side for business and education are endless.

Windows 8 is only in Its Infancy, give It Time

Windows 8 is a bold new step for Microsoft, and it will take time to mature. Windows RT will likely find its own nitch, possibly with consumers only, but the Desktop will continue to be the workhorse for business. It should not be a matter of saying whether Windows 8 is a success or failure. Windows 8 is new, different, but at the same time the old and familiar is still there (the Desktop). Currently backward compatibility is very good on the Desktop side. In time, even Microsoft may realize how valuable this side of Windows really is.

The Desktop in Windows is a diamond in the rough that simply needs to be fine-tuned even more, not abandoned. The potential for both sides of Windows 8 is staggering. The range of devices that Windows 8 could run is also quite staggering. Hardware manufacturers simply need to be more practical and creative. New form factors may yet appear, but price still matters.

Computer hardware can ill-afford to be viewed as throw away anymore. Rather it too needs to be just as dynamic as the software needs to be. Mobile devices need to be upgradeable and repairable too. Windows has a long heritage it can leverage and it should be prepared for the long haul, maturing as needed.

Photo Credit: Mopic/Shutterstock

Chris Boss is an advanced Windows API programmer and developer of 10 year-old EZGUI, which is now version 5. He owns The Computer Workshop, which opened for businesses in the late 1980s. He originally developed custom software for local businesses. Now he develops programming tools for use with the PowerBasic compiler.

Remembering the creator of Turbo Basic

Publié: décembre 2, 2012, 11:17pm CET par Chris Boss

BASIC programmers who have been around awhile likely remember Borland Internationals Turbo Basic. What few may realize though is that Borland did not create Turbo Basic. Bob Zale did. They purchased the rights to his compiler, which was derived from his previous compiler, Basic/Z and named it Turbo Basic. Borland eventually left the compiler market and Turbo Basic was one of the first of their languages to go. Again most people do not realize that Turbo Basic didn't die, but Borland simply sold back the rights to its creator, Bob Zale, and he renamed it PowerBasic and it is still around today, albeit in a different form.

Sadly, Zale died on November 6 at the age of 66. He will be sorely missed, not only by his family and coworkers at PowerBasic, but by many thousands of BASIC programmers, some of whom have used programming language since the days of Turbo Basic or even the earlier Basic/Z.

The Turbo Basic Heritage

Many programmers today are young and don't remember the challenges of writing software for computers with so little memory and disk space that it seems ancient even compared to the typical MP3 player today. Just take a look at these advertisements which date back to 1987: One, Two.

The system requirements for this powerful compiler: 320 KB of memory and one floppy disk drive. Back then a decent CPU was less than 25Mhz in speed. And programmers today complain about the Atom CPU being too slow! In the old days every cycle of the CPU counted and compiler makers knew this.

How important it was back then to be able to squeeze as much power out of a computer as possible. If programmers today think it is hard to write software, imagine trying to build a complex business application which would run on 640 KB of memory and two floppy drives. What made the difference was the compiler they used and programmers knew that. Turbo Basic lived up to that challenge.

The Man behind Turbo Basic

Bob Zale had a motto, which he carried on until the day he died: "smaller, faster, smaller, faster". He actually commented that he posted this motto around the offices of PowerBasic to encourage all of his employees to feel the same way. Bob set a high standard for his software, which continues to this day. I had the privilege of beta testing for PowerBasic, and I can vouch that in each new version, Bob pushed his team to make the compiler faster and better, so it could produce smaller and faster programs. The interesting thing about Bob Zale (and his team) was that they still wrote code in assembler. Who writes a compiler using assembler any more? Bob Zale did and it showed. Bob appreciated assembler so much that he made sure his BASIC compilers supported inline assembler.

But Bob Zale was more than just a smart programmer. I was deeply impressed by a comment that one of his employees posted on their online forums. To quote:

Bob was not only my boss, but he was more like a member of the family. He was always there to give you a ride if your car was having trouble. Give advice on a legal contract. Whatever the problem was you could go to Bob and he listen and try to help. He could be hard to deal with sometimes. But he was so much more. Bob was friendly, kind, and helpful and never boring. He was also one of the smartest people I have ever met. I will miss him greatly.

Turbo Basic's great grand children, now the PowerBasic line of compilers, lives on and Bob Zale has built a solid team of people to carry on. Hopefully even today they remember Bob's motto of "smaller, faster, smaller, faster" and yes a new version of PowerBasic is currently in development.

Appreciating the Work of Bob Zale

As a long time BASIC programmer, I can greatly appreciate the accomplishments of Bob Zale and his team at PowerBasic. I first learned programming in BASIC in 1975 on a mainframe computer connected to my high school via a modem and terminal. In the 1980s my first computer was a Texas Instruments TI-99/4A, and I continued using BASIC on it. After that I bought an Atari 400 computer using BASIC on it and then my favorite computer was the Commodore 64.

Not only did I use the built in BASIC of the C64, but I also used the Abacus Basic compiler which was my first real compiler. I used that compiler to even write my own compiler specifically designed for creating very fast software. I learned 6502 machine language so I could build my own compiler. So even back then, BASIC compilers were important to programmers like myself.

Then it was time to move to business computers and I used BASIC on CPM computers and finally I got my first IBM clone and Microsoft's QuickBasic became my primary programming language. I then moved on to Microsoft's professional PDS 7.1 Basic compiler, with a little assembler thrown in and wrote software for a variety of local businesses.

With the advent of Windows I dabbled with a variety of Basics such as GFA Basic, CA Realizer and Visual Basic, but I finally found PowerBasic and I never looked back. I have been a PowerBasic programmer for a good decade now, and I too feel the same way as Bob Zale did with the mindset of "smaller, faster, smaller, faster".

I am greatful to Bob Zale and all he did in in keeping BASIC alive. I and thousands of other PowerBasic programmers will miss him.

Photo Credit: Yellowj/Shutterstock

What Windows 8 needs to succeed

Publié: septembre 7, 2012, 8:27pm CEST par Chris Boss

As a long-time Windows user, as well as software developer, I have pondered about what would make Windows 8 and the new modern UI (aka. Metro) a success. Microsoft can spit and polish the operating system, but people will interact more with applications. As good as Windows 8 might be, it won't satisfy if the apps aren't good enough.

That's why I believe Microsoft needs to rethink Windows Store. One isn't enough for Windows 8. There needs to be a second Signature store that offers only the highest-quality apps, however few they be. I'll explain.

Android App Nightmare

Last year I realized that the computer world is going mobile and that I better get on board as a software developer, which is why I got my first tablet -- the ExoPC. I looked forward to Windows 8 and realized that when released it will be all about mobile. Yet, Android intrigued me, so I purchased a nice small decent 7-inch Android Zeki tablet. I like the design. I like the size. The quality is good. But when it came time to start downloading some apps, the experience began to change: Too many apps, not enough quality!

I started downloading as many free apps as I could find that interested me. To my surprise, most free apps display advertisements, which gets to be a real distraction after awhile. I would not mind if a free app advertised a paid app created by the same developer (software developers simply cannot do everything for free), but they were more like a bunch of Google advertisements found on many websites.

Additionally, I was not very impressed with the quality of many of the apps. Surely there are some very good Android apps, but how does one find them among the hundreds of thousands of choices available?

Windows 8 Store is a Fresh Approach

By comparison, I am relatively pleased with the Windows Store, despite the limited number of apps. Sure, it will take awhile before we get more and better choices, but using the store is a nice experience. I find it much easier to deal with than some Android stores. The selection, downloading and installing of apps on Windows 8 should be a better experience for many people compared to Android stores.

When the apps start rolling in, things could change -- that when the apps start rolling in, experience will be like Android. Will the quality of the apps improve and get better and better or will the app market simply degrade with time as more and more developers start making low-quality apps -- like with any other mobile operating system?

The goal of any app store is to provide as many choices as possible for users, but there is an inherent problem with having thousands, if not millions of apps available. You simply can not maintain control. Low-quality apps can easily flood into any mobile app market. There is also a temptation for Microsoft to try to build up the base of its apps in the store quickly, simply to get a high count, which could lead to poor-quality apps sneeking in. So what is the solution?

Microsoft needs Two App Stores

While Microsoft already has its current Windows Store for downloading apps for Windows 8 and likely the store will use some kind of automated system to vet the apps, especially as the numbers grow, I really think they should create a second totally unique store. It should be called Microsoft Signature Store. The company has used the Signature brand for awhile now in its online store for selling computers, laptops and tablets free of so-called bloatware. When you purchase a Microsoft Signature PC you expect quality and no bloatware. The ExoPC tablet I purchased was a Signature version from the Microsoft Store and I got what I expected -- quality.

Microsoft could use the Signature brand for a second app store for Windows 8. How would this shop be different? Developers would be required to have their apps distributed through the normal Windows Store. Nothing would change. What Microsoft could do would be to set up an in-house team, which monitors the quality of apps and makes sure that meets the Signature standard. Apps with real value would be offered in the Microsoft Signature Store. Any employee at Microsoft could make a suggestion to this team but they would make the decision.

Now the Signature Store, to work, must use only real people to vet the apps. No matter how big it gets, the apps must be vetted by real people who download the apps and spend some time with them. That is the only way I can see it work. I would want to see some real commentary by any (or all) of the Microsoft people who actually use the app as well.

The Signature Store, does not need to have thousands or millions of apps. It only needs to have a few hundred that are guaranteed to be of high quality, fully tested. One good example of an existing Windows 8 app of such a standard is the Cut the Rope game. I enjoyed that game from day one and the Windows 8 implimentation is of high quality.

A large number of apps is simply meaningless. Too many poor quality apps puts off users. I would rather go to an app store with only a couple hundred apps, which all have been vetted by a real human being for their quality, than to an app store with millions of apps of dubious quality.

Microsoft is trying hard to build a better operating system (Windows 8) and better tablets (Surface), but to make it all work they have to build a better app store. If they created a unique Microsoft Signature App Store, no matter how much work it requires from real people, in the long run it would likely ensure the success of Windows 8.

Don't forget the Desktop

Whether Microsoft appreciates it or not, the Windows Desktop (aka. WIN32 software) is here to stay, at least for the near future. Business users of Windows 8 will be concerned about getting quality software for use with the Desktop (x86) that is of high quality and runs well on Windows 8. Why not create a third app store? This one could be called the Microsoft Signature Desktop Store and distribute x86 apps specifically designed to work well with Windows 8 and particularly with touch-enabled devices.

It is important for x86 tablet users to have software that is well written for the desktop, but is designed specifically for a touch device (and one with a mouse). This Signature store would also allow developers to distribute their apps (not just advertise them), but the apps would be vetted by real people at Microsoft, too. Their job would be to find such software, whether from the big sofware companies or independent software developers. Again it is not the quantity that matters, but the quality. Even quality freeware should exist in this store.

In the end, it is the software which counts.

No matter how good the operating system or the hardware is, in the end the apps matter more.

Photo Credit: Digital Storm/Shutterstock

HP should save the enterprise from Windows 8

Publié: juillet 6, 2012, 8:23am CEST par Chris Boss

With Microsoft bringing their own branded tablets to market, what is left for major OEMs like Hewlett Packard? One's first reaction may be to consider trying to do one better with the hardware. While this is still possible, maybe HP should consider getting back into the software business.

HP is making a good decision by concentrating on the x86 platform, rather than ARM in future tablets. Windows RT is untested at this point. Also Windows RT will not run the huge existing x86 based Windows software base that dwarfs any current app store in quantity and quality. There can be many advantages to HP's current decision.

Microsoft has made some choices in the past decade that demonstrate they have lost appreciation for the value of backward compatibility. This was once Windows biggest strength, but it is now changing. Dropping classic Visual Basic for VB.NET was the first step. Pushing managed programming languages (aka. .NET) and the .NET frameworks was the next step. Windows 8 and its new Metro interface has been the pinnacle of this mindset. While consumers may flock to Metro and the App Store model, power users and especially business users will be more concerned with a more practical approach of backward compatibility. To appreciate the significance of backward compatibility and how it made Windows what it is today read Joel Spolsky's discussion about this.

HP has an opportunity to build its own unique software, to go with its hardware, which can give it an edge over Microsoft. How? Microsoft sadly has lost appreciation of how important backward compatibility is, but HP can use this to their advantage. How?

While Microsoft in their own software development has to a degree abandoned backward compatiblity, the operating system hasn't totally lost this. Windows 8, aside from Metro, still supports the Desktop. The interesting thing about the Windows 8 desktop is that it does an amazing job of running older software and the WIN32 APIs are still quite intact. I have done extensive testing of this and I have found that one can easily write complex software that can run on a wide-range of Windows platforms from Windows 95 to Windows 8. Now HP really only needs to concentrate on Windows XP to Windows 8, which is actually not that difficult. Business users will appreciate modern software that will run just as well on their Windows XP machines as it does in Windows 8. Software can also be designed to poll the operating system and then dynamically impliment features based on which ever version of Windows it is being run on.

Build Better Software

Can an OEM like HP build better software than Microsoft ? If they want to, absolutely! Watch Herb Sutters (Microsoft C++ expert) talk "Why C++?" and see how he describes the industry's failure to develop software with performance in mind. Now as a long-time Windows API developer myself, I will go one step further than Sutter. I lay the blame on managed programming languages and the industry's obsession with Object Oriented Programming. The majority of programmers will likely not agree with this observation, but I strongly feel that we have lost sight of how to build software with a small footprint and excellent performance.

I am not alone in this viewpoint either. How software is designed can determine whether it is efficient or not. Also targeting hardware directly using programming languages that can leverage the power of CPU as well as the operating system provides manufacturers the ability to build software with a small footprint and high performance that can significantly improve the user experience on tablet computers. There are those experienced in software development who recognize that current development methods, particularly object oriented programming, don't always produce the high performance software end users desire.

What Others are Saying

Alexander Stepanov:

Yes. STL is not object oriented. I think that object orientedness is almost as much of a hoax as Artificial Intelligence. I have yet to see an interesting piece of code that comes from these OO people. In a sense, I am unfair to AI: I learned a lot of stuff from the MIT AI Lab crowd, they have done some really fundamental work: Bill Gosper's Hakmem is one of the best things for a programmer to read. AI might not have had a serious foundation, but it produced Gosper and Stallman (Emacs), Moses (Macsyma) and Sussman (Scheme, together with Guy Steele).

I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types. I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. Even if it is true it is not very interesting -- saying that everything is an object is saying nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong. It starts with classes. It is as if mathematicians would start with axioms. You do not start with axioms - you start with proofs. Only when you have found a bunch of related proofs, can you come up with axioms. You end with axioms. The same thing is true in programming: you have to start with interesting algorithms. Only when you understand them well, can you come up with an interface that will let them work.

Also found at:

[en.wikipedia.org]
http://www.antiquark.com/escape/public_html/stepanovusa.html

A more balanced understanding of his views of OOP can be found in this paper of his: [www2.research.att.com]

Richard Mansfield:

His white paper entitled "Has OOP failed ?" broaches this subject. Richard Mansfield has a very long history in technology. He was the editor of Compute magazine for about 7 years and has written dozens of computer / programming books which in total have sold about 500,000 copies. A number of his books were on Visual Basic .NET so he obviously had plenty of experience using OOP based languages.

To quote Mansfield: "There's no evidence that the OOP approach is efficient for most programming jobs. Indeed I know of no serious study comparing traditional, procedure-oriented programming with OOP. But there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that OOP retards programming efforts. Guarantee confidentiality and programmers will usually tell you that OOP often just makes their job harder",

Asaf Shelly:

I found this interesting blog on the Intel web site with an article entitled "Flaws of Object Oriented Modeling" .

The author makes this comment about OOP: "Now it is almost impossible to follow the execution flow. When you want to know what happened in your application when the error message popped up you have to go over all the objects and all the classes that the execution flow went through and many times execution flow travels between several member functions before leaving to another object. Following the execution flow today is almost impossible".

Stephen C. Johnson (Melismatic Software):

"Object-oriented programming (OOP) is an ancient (25-year-old) technology, now being pushed as the answer to all the world's programming ills. While not denying that there are advantages to OOP, I argue that it is being oversold." and also "Object-oriented languages tend to burn CPU cycles, both at compile and execution time, out of proportion to the benefits they provide".

Bjarne Stroustrup:

Said to be the designer and original implementor of C++ makes some interesting comments in an interview: "Well. It was obvious to me 20-some years ago that OOP wasn't a panacea. That's the reason C++ supports several design and programming styles" and "In the first edition of "The C++ Programming Language," I didn't use the phrase "object-oriented programming" because I didn't want to feed the hype. One of the problems with OOP is exactly that unscrupulous people have hyped it as a panacea. Overselling something inevitably leads to disappointments".

"That said, OOD/OOP is my favorite way of approaching design and programming. It just isn't the right style for every program and for every detail of a program. Some good abstractions are best represented outside class hierarchies. Trying to force everything into a hierarchy -- especially into a single-rooted hierarchy - can give truly contorted programs".

Chris Turner:

He describes himself as "an agile architect and developer specialising in building large, scalable enterprise and Internet solutions". In his blog he makes some interesting comments such as "I have therefore been moving away from the object-oriented development principles that have made up the bulk of my 17 year career to date. More and more I am beginning to feel that objects have been a diversion away from building concise, well structured and reusable software." and concludes by saying "I'm certainly building smaller, cleaner and better structured software than I ever was before".

Dermot Hogan (Bitwise magazine technical editor):

He says "in the twenty or so years since object-oriented programming emerged from the universities, there is not one single documented, cast-iron, nailed-to-the-ground, proven case study that OOP works." and also "On the contrary, there is solid evidence that OOP doesn't work. Just look around you at the numerous failed, over budget disasters in the IT industry".

Department of Computer. Science and IT, University of Jammu:

"The use of object-oriented technology (OOT) has been shown to be of great value in many market sectors, but to the use of such technology within embedded systems remain a challenge. Such systems require high execution speed and have high memory constraints" and " The object-oriented approach is known to introduce a significant performance penalty in terms of memory and time compared to classical procedural programming. In this paper, we have analyzed the execution speed of the different programs generated by the compilers of C and Java. The investigation shows that the speed of execution shows considerable difference between the Object Oriented and procedural programming languages"; and they come to an interesting conclusion when they say "It is concluded that the Object Oriented Programming languages proves to be slower than the procedural programming languages in terms of execution speed than there counterpart".

Multicore CPU's Only mask the Real Problems

Many of my peers will likely suggest that multicore CPU's solve the problems with performance. True, developing software that leverages multicore CPU's will make a big difference but I feel compelled to add that multicore CPU's only mask the problem, rather the solve the problem. Why?

As a simple example, while I am writing this article on my Windows XP (SP3) computer, I have one instance of Windows Explorer 8.0 running, displaying the current BetaNews web page. When I run task manager IE actually runs two different instances (processes) of itself , one using about 16MB RAM, 7MB virtual memory, 14 threads and the other using about 134MB RAM, 125MB virtual memory, 24 threads. Just displaying one web page is costing me 150MB RAM, 132MB virtual memory and 38 threads. Rather than be an improvement, software for Windows 7 and Windows 8 will likely have similiar problems.

Now add to this all the background processes running on any typical Windows computer and you may have dozens of threads running using a significant amount of memory. While Windows 8 may have been improved overall, once you start running a few apps forget about performance and multicore CPU's, while an improvement, don't solve the core problem which is poorly designed software which over uses hardware resources.

What this means for Hewlett Packard is that the hardware specs alone won't make the difference. If they want to build better tablets than Microsoft, the software experience also has to improve. Now does anyone really expect the Windows 8 Pro Surface tablet to cost much less than a $1,00 ? Not likely. Why? Because to provide the proper-end user experience, heavy-duty hardware is required. Have you ever wondered why at the BUILD conference the tablet provided to developers had a heavy duty multicore CPU in it? Because you need a powerhouse CPU to compensate for the performance lacking Visual Studio.

I downloaded a recent Visual Studio beta and installed it on a system with a Pentium D 3.2GHz dual-core CPU (2MB RAM), on which I had installed Windows 8. While Windows 8 runs very well on this computer, Visual Studio is so slow it amazes me. When the development tools programmers use today are so bloated that they require heavy-duty multicore CPUs just to run acceptably and they use as much disk space as some operating systems, then something is wrong.

End users often make comparisons between computing devices, such as tablets, by their hardware specifications. When you see a device with a quad-core CPU instead of a dual-core, one is quick to assume that you will get a significantly better experience. Sadly, some of the experience will be lost to software bloat. Yes, that better CPU means a faster computer, but will a percentage of that experience be lost to increasing software bloat?

To take a quote from Wikipedia:

"Niklaus Wirth has summed up the situation in Wirth's Law, which states that software speed is decreasing more quickly than hardware speed is increasing".

To take some quotes from IBM's web site:

"Based on our 8 years of experience solving performance problems, we have found that runtime bloat in real Java applications is pervasive".

"Bloat is a systemic problem, resulting from a software engineering culture encourages abstraction and layering, with a goal of rapid application development".

HP, Go Back to the Basics

Since the days of the early computers, something was lost along the way.

To quote the wikipedia article again:

"Software developers involved in the industry during the 1970s had severe limitations on disk space and memory. Every byte and clock cycle counted, and much work went into fitting the programs into available resources. Achieving this efficiency was one of the highest values of computer programmers, and the best programs were often called "elegant"--seen as a form of high art...

"This situation has now reversed. Resources are perceived as cheap, and rapidity of coding and headline features for marketing are seen as priorities...

"Niklaus Wirth has summed up the situation in Wirth's Law, which states that software speed is decreasing more quickly than hardware speed is increasing".

While HP likely can produce a simliar quality Windows tablet compared to Microsofts Surface, maybe what they really need to do is concentrate on the entire end-user experience. By building better software with a small footprint and significant performance, HP could even offer lower-cost tablets that would better appeal to businesses and consumers alike. Editor: Didn't HP already try this, and give up, with TouchPad and webOS?

Netbooks became popular, not just because of their small form factor, but also because of their extremely low price. Could HP be the first to build a $200 Windows 8 (x86) tablet? It may be possible. Intel's StudyBook tablet concept is a great idea, but the cost is too high. A 7-inch Windows 8 (x86) tablet in the $200 range is definitely possible, but it would require the software to match. Even Microsoft's Windows RT Surface tablet is likely going to be in the $500 range from what I gather so far, which is not that impressive to me.

If Microsoft can get into the hardware business, maybe HP needs to get into the software business. There are advantages of building the software to match the hardware. While Microsoft is likely building the hardware to match their software, HP could do the reverse and start building the software to match their hardware, but just doing it one better and opting for a small footprint and performance.

Build a Bridge Between the Desktop and Metro

Metro will be a big change for many people, while the desktop, refered to as legacy, is not dead yet and may have a much longer life span than even Microsoft may think. What is needed is a better bridge between the two. HP could provide this with well-designed software that better bridges the two. Businesses shouldn't have to replace all their computers with Windows 8 PCs (or upgrade them all), but they should be able to easily integrate a few new Windows 8 computers (and the software) with their existing computer base. Obviously some software must be designed for Metro, but the desktop is not dead yet and that needs to be concentrated on.

While Metro apps will only run on Windows 8, desktop apps can run on many current versions of Windows, too. Why would a business want an application that can only run on Windows 8? Now if HP could design software that could span all the different versions of Windows, including Metro, to provide a better overall experience, this could provide them with an advantage. HP can build for the desktop first, while building secondary apps (with similiar functionality) which support Metro as well. The enterprise would definitelly appreciate this and HP could offset low-profit margins of the hardware by selling more software.

For example, imagine buying an HP Windows 8 tablet that comes with a DVD with a suite of tools which not only runs on Metro (Metro versions), but also can run on Windows XP, Vista and 7 machines (desktop versions). If you buy their tablet, they could offer a special OEM price for buying extra DVDs of the same software suite to run on your Windows XP or 7 desktops. In the end, software is what makes the difference!

If HP wants to move into the twenty-first century, then maybe they, too, should become a hardware and software business -- the latter, again. Apple does it. Google is now doing it and so is Microsoft.

Photo Credit: drserg/Shutterstock

Microsoft Surface gets a positive response from this Windows developer

Publié: juin 20, 2012, 10:24pm CEST par Chris Boss

After seeing the latest information about Microsoft's new Surface tablet computers and also reading Joe Wilcox's latest article about them, I finally get Microsoft's mindset -- and I am impressed. So what does this Windows developer think of Surface? Need a tablet to appreciate what it is all about.

I don't have deep pockets, so I try to use my computers as long as possible, but after hearing about Windows 8, I knew I needed to get a tablet as soon as possible. Something big was afoot ! Fortunately Microsoft made is easier for me when the Microsoft Store had an amazing deal on an ExoPC Windows tablet for only $399. I jumped on that deal, and I think it was the right one.

When the Windows 8 Developers Preview was available, I quickly downloaded and installed it on a desktop and on my tablet. The tablet produced the better experience, and I appreciated Windows 8 from the start. The ExoPC has the requirements to fully support Windows 8, since unlike some other Windows tablets it has the minimum 1366 x 768 resolution required for the Snap functionality. The tablet also has a 64 gig SSD, so I could partition the drive and install Windows 8 side by side with Windows 7. This allowed me to easily compare the two.

Microsoft has long seen the value of mobile computing, but concepts like Tablet PC just never caught on. This did not mean the concept was wrong, but simply the necessary factors for success just weren't there yet. Apples iPad really got things rolling and now the hardware for Windows has finally caught up to Microsoft's vision.

Across the Surface

So far I am impressed with what Microsoft promises with their Surface tablets. A couple factors I believe make a difference. First, the built in stand, which appears to be very solid, is a great idea. Second is the unique keyboards. Making them dual-purpose, as a cover for the tablet and keyboard, is a very good idea. Offering two different keyboards, one thin and light-weight for those who don't need to do a lot of heavy typing and the other for those who really need the ability to type as well as they do on their laptop is smart thinking.

I can see how the Windows RT and the Windows 8 Pro versions will likely target different markets. I would imagine the RT version would be the less expensive of the two, so it likely will target consumers, while the Windows 8 Pro version will likely be for businesses.

Price is the Big Question

I am not interested in the Windows RT version, since I want a real Windows tablet capable of running current software. My biggest concern though is the price point for the Windows 8 Pro version. There is a lesson to be learned from the netbook, which grew in popularity as much because of price, if not more, than small size and former factor. Whether you are a consumer or a business user, price does make a difference. This can be seen by the success of the Amazon Kindle Fire. Price is the key to its success.

There are plenty of expensive alternatives for those who can afford them, but many people are simply looking for the best mobile experience that is most affordable. The Surface tablets are a great idea, but the price they sell for may be far more important than their specifications. Intel's StudyBook tablet, for example, is a great idea, but unless you can afford to buy them in bulk (like a large school) the price is also likely too high (for individuals). One company sells a version of the StudyBook for about $500, which is way too expensive for my tastes. Price is the main reason I purchased the ExoPC. The features were there, but the price was right.

Surface, Don't stop There

I also would like to see a 7-inch Surface tablet running Windows 8 (not just RT). But to make lower priced tablets a reality, some changes to Windows 8 could help. It is obvious to me as a developer that the Windows 8 Pro Surface tablet will be a bit on the expensive side, because it will have a quad-core CPU. More powerful CPUs not only cost more but they also consume more power.

One of the problems with Windows is how software is developed today. Suffice it to say, that a lot of software is bloated and slow. This is no reflection on the hardware, but how software is written. Herb Sutter in his talk, "Why C++?" discusses how software lacks performance today, and he suggests getting back to writing native code.

As a long-time native code developer myself, I can see the benefits of this. It is possible to write software for Windows that uses minimal resources and which executes very fast. To make lower-cost Surface tablets a reality, getting closer to the operating system makes a lot of sense, since it promotes a more "fast and fluid" experience, while allowing manufacturers to build tablets using less expensive parts.

Businesses want Tablets

Some have suggested that Microsoft is forgoing businesses in favor of consumers, with Windows 8. I have to believe that Microsoft is just as committed to its business customers, so the question arises, are businesses looking for ways to integrate tablets into their companies? Just look at the iPad, for example. There is little doubt that businesses are very interested in the iPad and some are finding ways to integrate them into their operations.

The Surface tablets have the potential for being successful in the workplace, but aside from features, price also may be critical. One of the problems with using any tablet in a business is the cost of developing software for them. If a company has to develop software separately for its desktop computers and its tablet computers, this produces added expense.

This is why the backward compatibility of Windows 8, with previous desktop versions of Windows, is so important. Building Metro apps exclusively may be more expensive, so some software needs to be developed for the desktop but with a more Metro-style so it blends well with Metro, while still being able to run on older computers running Windows Vista or Windows 7.

To be able to build an application that is intuitive, can run full screen and runs just as well on Windows Vista as Windows 8 is a great benefit for companies. This is one reason native coding has some advantages and should be promoted more, rather than less.

Now if businesses, especially the Enterprise, can buy affordable Windows 8 Surface tablets (and even from OEM partners their tablets) and be able to write intuitive software (which can tell whether touch is available) that runs well on legacy desktops, on current desktops and also runs well on a Windows 8 tablet with minimal hardware (so low cost), then Microsoft might see a significantly faster adoption of Windows tablets.

$200 Price Point

Of course many tablets will be in the $500 to $800 range, comparable to many laptops today, but the $200 price point is definitely worth working towards.

Imagine how businesses would jump to buy multitudes of $200 Windows 8 tablets. If a business could buy four $200 tablets instead of just one $800 tablet, likely they would adopt them more quickly. Of course there will also be a market for the more expensive tablets, but a low-cost alternative could make Surface a household name.

Many Form Factors

While I really like the idea of a small mobile computer, I don't think desktops will disappear anytime soon. Even a laptop keyboard can't compare to a quality desktop keyboard (I am still using a 20 year-old IBM Model M keyboard, one of the best ever built). A touchpad just can never replace a mouse for some applications. The ability to be able to easily upgrade a desktop with off-the-shelf parts is a big advantage, especially for a business.

Yet, tablets appear to be here to stay, so software developers need to find ways to be able to build software for both the desktop and tablet worlds. One thing is for sure. Windows has definitely been reimagined! New ways of computing are surfacing and likely more are to come. So far, Microsoft Surface gets a positive response from this Windows developer, but I am still waiting to see how they are priced.

Windows 8 needs a little more work

Publié: juin 6, 2012, 9:56pm CEST par Chris Boss

Windows 8 gets a poor grade on a simple task. What is that task you may ask? Read on.

Every Windows computer needs a beginners programming language. Those of us from the DOS days can look back fondly on QBasic. From learning how to program, to just having a quick and easy scripting language that a business user can use to write some simple app in a few minutes, a beginners language makes sense. So what beginners programming language might fit the bill for Windows 8? Microsoft's own Small Basic!

Yes, Small Basic. It is free. It is popular. It is BASIC, ala .NET-style. I thought Small Basic would be the perfect choice to download and install on my latest install of the Windows 8 Release Preview. Sadly, it was not good news. I will be kind and just assume that Small Basic was not on Microsoft's top-10 list of apps to test on Windows 8, but this does indicate that Microsoft may want to make sure Windows 8 is really ready for those who have lots of existing desktop apps to install.

I downloaded Small Basic from Microsoft's website and tried to install it. The first problem I experienced: The software requires a version of the .NET runtime that appears to not come with Windows 8. I had to then download the .NET 3.5 (service pack 1) runtime first before I could even install Small Basic.

Okay, I was now ready to play with Small Basic. I ran the app and then started to try some of the sample Small Basic apps (source code) that come with it. I loaded one source code file after another, but with each encountered a problem that I still don't know the solution to. Each time I ran (compile and run) a Small Basic sample app I got the same error message: "Sorry we found some Errors" and "Access Denied". Likely there is a solution to overcome this, but I could not find it on the web (did a Google Search). I could not get a single sample app to run in Small Basic.

So I decided to download another beginner's scripting language, called ThinBasic, which I know is not a .NET application (written in pure native API code) to see how well it worked. I downloaded and installed ThinBasic, and it ran fine -- each sample app. Even some OpenGL 3D sample apps ran quite well (I had installed the latest video drivers on my Windows 8 installation).

Now, this may not be important to many of those who are currently testing out Windows 8, but I do think this does say something. With all the emphasis going into Metro, maybe a little more testing of the Windows desktop would be in order here. Maybe this is simply a .NET issue, but shouldn't all of the .NET runtimes be installed on Windows 8 and multiple popular apps that use different versions of .NET be tested?

Remember, Small Basic does come from Microsoft and it is their solution to the need for something akin to DOS' QBasic for Windows, so it makes a lot of sense that it should have been tested with Windows 8.

I will give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here, since I understand they have a lot on their plate right now with Metro and all. I would like to say that it would be nice to see Small Basic added to Windows 8 so every PC or tablet shipped will offer an easy to learn programming language. Please just make sure it works on the official release version of Windows 8.

Software performance matters

Publié: mai 10, 2012, 1:45am CEST par Chris Boss

The issue with the soon-to-come generation of Windows mobile computers (tablets) of performance versus productivity, when it comes to software development, looms on all of us programmers who desire to write software for Windows 8. As a longtime Windows API programmer I appear to be in the minority, but I just can't help but ask the question: "Do programmers just not get it?"

I have watched the video of a talk by Microsoft's Herb Sutter entitled "Why C++?" more than once and even though I don't use C++, I just can't help but appreciate his points about the importance of performance, especially when it comes to the next generation of mobile devices.

He discusses the importance of performance from tablet computers to large datacenters. He uses terms like performance per watt , performance per dollar and performance per cycle (how much work can you get from the hardware). He even comments about how in a datacenter, the performance of software can have an effect on up to 80 percent of the total cost to run the datacenter (better software uses less power and requires less hardware).

OK, folks, this guy is an expert in the industry, so don't listen to me. He definitely is on to something here, and I am not convinced that most programmers grasp it fully yet.

The Problem Is Not the Hardware, But the Software

Manufacturers of computer hardware for years have frantically tried to keep pace, pushing each new generation further and further. I can remember developing software for computers, with a 20MB (not a typo) hard drive or just floppy drives and no hard drive at all. Memory counted in kilobytes. A fast CPU ran at 25 MHz.

Let's be honest here. When it comes to computers we have come a long way. Today, CPUs are in the gigahertz range, and they have an onboard cache with more memory than the entire computer had back in those days. Hard drives are now come with terabytes of space. RAM memory is in the gigabytes. So hardware manufacturers, give yourself a pat on the back, because you have done an amazing job of pushing the maximum. It is time programmers stop picking on companies like Intel with their Atom CPU.

The so called "Moore's Law", at some point will reach an end most likely. Even Herb Sutter admits this. At some point performance of software will be what really matters. Programmers just don't seem to get this though. I don't understand it personally. Let me give you an example of how programmers may not fully appreciate how performance is really achieved.

Asynchronous

Read the comments to some of my other articles and more than once you will see someone post how the latest managed (.NET) programming languages solve the problem with slow software, by providing the asynchronous calls to object methods (subroutines or functions). The idea is that because Windows is a multitasking operating system and most CPUs today are multicore, that if some part of the software is too slow or takes too long to run, a programmer can just pass this code on to a separate thread (running asynchronously or at the same time) , which is then simply passed on to another core of the CPU and everything is solved. Now you have "fast and fluid" software.

The truth is that such programming techniques simply pass the buck back to the hardware, expecting it to solve the programmers' problems. The technique of using threads is nothing new. Multi-threading has been in Windows for many, many years and experienced programmers knew how and when to tap into multithreading.

Multithreading does not speed up software. It simply forces a computer to do two tasks at one time, simply by switching between them so fast you don't notice the switch. But no matter how you word it, the computer is trying to do two tasks, rather than just one, which means more work, not less and the switching process has overhead, which means even more work.

To illustrate. Consider someone who is a juggler. It is not easy to juggle two balls. But as the juggler starts adding more balls, things start getting harder and harder. Each new ball added significantly increases the complexity of the task. You see a juggler only has two hands and each hand can only handle one ball at a time. The same holds true with computers. No matter how many cores a CPU has, at some point you are handling more tasks than the number of CPU cores you have. Each core can only handle one task at a time. Now a CPU may be optimized to do some things in parallel within itself, but even there it has limits. The point is that just like the juggler, a computer can do only so much work.

Sutter in his talk tries to tell us that performance still matters and will matter even more in the future. Why? Mobile computers, because of their small form factor, have less power and resources, so they have to be used carefully. Computers where form factor is not an issue, like data centers, do more work today, not less, so hardware is being pushed to the limit.

But look how far computer hardware has come in just a few decades. The problem is not with computer hardware failing to keeping pace, but it is with how we design software and our lack of appreciation for using limited resources effectively. Programmers just don't get it. We can't keep blaming the hardware or just keep passing the buck to the hardware. Performance is our problem to solve, but sadly it is a low priority for many.

A Lesson From Old Timers

Programmers who date back to the days of DOS or earlier are often looked upon as relics in this modern age. Some of them still use command line compilers, rather than the latest studio development environment. Whether businesses or the enterprise realize it or not, there is a great asset there that could and should be tapped into. Such programmers likely know what it means to get every last bit of power out of a computer. They know what it means to work with limited memory. They know what it means to count CPU cycles. They may still use a stop watch to time how long some code takes to run.

Such talent is rare today, in my opinion. Programmers, no matter what development language they use, who know how to write software with performance in mind, are valuable to the industry. When I wrote my article about sending programmers to Walmart to buy their computers, few who commented could appreciate the purpose behind it. They just don't get the point. Some of what I was saying was in jest. I don't expect programmers to use low-power computers. The mindset matters -- that performance is important. Whatever it takes, even making a programmer use a less-powerful computer, to help him or her see the importance of performance can be beneficial.

Get Back to the Basics

The programming world may be just so wrapped up in the latest technologies, the latest frameworks, the latest development studios thinking it all makes us more productive, while forgetting what a computer really is and how it really works. Just mention the word "assembler" or "machine language" and some programmers may just shudder! They may think such terms belong in the Dark Ages. Well, guess what? That is how a computer actually works under the hood. Everything we develop using high-level tools eventually will be executed on a computer at the lowest level, which is machine language. What we design using any high-level tool or language, must some how become machine language.

This is why old timers moved away from interpreted languages in favor of compilers. While a scripting language can be useful in some contexts, remember it takes longer for scripting to run than pure machine language. While I don't expect us all to go back to assembler, nor do I feel that scripting languages have no value, it is still important to remember to always count the cost of how we develop software. Productivity is important too, but not at the cost of all performance. Actually productivity tools designed with performance in mind can be very powerful. Even scripting languages can be optimized for speed and performance.

But programmers have to always keep performance in mind. Just because computers appear to have extra power (or resources) to spare, does not mean that programmers should not care about developing fast software that uses minimal resources. Maybe we just need to get back to the basics. Performance matters.

Photo Credit: Jose Gil/Shutterstock

How suitable is Windows 8 Metro for business developers?

Publié: mai 4, 2012, 11:01pm CEST par Chris Boss

What is Metro, Windows 8's new user interace motif, really all about? Does it fill all the needs of Windows users? Is Metro for consumers or for businesses? What does this all mean for the legacy desktop? These are some of the questions I hope to answer.

First let me say that I do not dislike Metro, and I don't want to give the impression that the new user interface is somehow terrible or a mistake. Microsoft has put a lot of work into Metro and some of the reasons for it does make a lot of sense. My perspective though as a programmer is based on the fact that the majority of software I have written over the years has been for businesses and not for consumers. Metro may very well be a success with consumers, but what about businesses?

For a start at answering that question and to appreciate what Metro is all about, you really have to watch the following two videos (with slides) from Microsoft's BUILD conference for developers:

When you watch the videos, the conclusion is obvious. Metro is definitely geared towards consumers. Why?

What Influences Metro Design?

When Microsoft uses terms like "beautiful", "fast and fluid" and "immersive" to describe Metro, doesn't that sound more consumer-oriented than business oriented? The three influences at the core of Metro are:

Modern design -- Bauhaus
International typographic style -- Swiss design
Motion design -- Cinematography

What does this actually mean? In simpler terms these three actually mean:

Function is more important that appearance
Fonts (type) and icons must be extremely clear, crisp, simple and legible
Movement, especially with type, can exude emotion

Some people who see Metro applications for the first time, may notice certain features that are totally different than ones experienced with desktop applications on Windows 7:

First is the use of a lot of open space.
Second is the tendency towards user interface elements being very flat, rather than 3-dimensional.
Third is the size of user interface elements tends to be much larger than with desktop applications.
Fourth is the fonts seem to be overly simple to the point of not standing out.
Fifth, transitions (effects) seem to be a key part of Metro. When you swipe the side of the screen (touch only) and another app takes over, the screen goes through an image transition (effect).
Sixth, there seems to be a lot of movement in Metro.

If you watch the videos noted above, you will quickly see why this is so.

Personally, I find that while all of this is nice and exudes a bit of emotion, once you get used to it can be a bit fun. It also strongly says "Metro is for consumers". The motif is for tablets, and Metro targets consumers. Likely there will be many apps that consumers will enjoy when Windows 8 is finally released.

Metro Is Wanting When It Comes To Many Business Tasks

Why would I say this? In one video the speaker comments about Adobe Photoshop and explains that "Chrome", as they now refer to the legacy desktop, has a purpose and something like Photoshop really does better as a desktop application. Despite using terms like legacy on MSDN for desktop application development, they are also saying here that the desktop is superior to Metro for certain things, like Photoshop.

The speaker even makes the bold statement that basically the mouse is still the most accurate input device there is for computers and that the keyboard is still the fastest way to input text. Metro is geared towards touch, rather than using the keyboard and the mouse. This may explain why open space in Metro apps, with large user interface elements (ie. buttons) are the rule.

Even the name Metro comes from the idea of easy to read signs when traveling. This is the influence for the very clear type, open space and easy to read interface elements in Metro. The problem with this though is that the design used in travel serves one simple purpose. People are in a hurry when traveling and signs must be large and easy to read or the point is lost. When traveling on the highway, a large clear sign is vital. But a business user working on a computer is not in a hurry and using space effectively on a computer display is vital to productivity. True, font or typestyle clarity is still important, but this has always been the case.

The use of motion, while great for exuding emotion, in business software can often get in the way. This is one reason many Windows users turn off things like transitions (effects) so that the display is more functional, rather than one big animation. Actually the principle of functionality and movement sometimes conflict with each other.

One thing I really don't like in Windows 8 when running desktop apps is how when you scroll in a listbox or listview control, that when you reach the top or bottom of the list, the entire window bounces up and down. Does the user really need this bouncing effect to tell them they reached the top or bottom of the list ? Windows 8 and Metro have been designed to exude a feeling or emotion when using it, but doesn't that sound more like trying to exude emotions like in a movie, rather than working on a computer? Does a business user really need this bouncing effect?

Kinetic Typography

To appreciate what I am saying, try the suggestion the speaker in one video mentioned. Go to YouTube and do a search using the words: "kinetic typography".

The videos I watched were a lot of fun, but how does this translate into doing work on a computer. This may be fun for consumers, but surely it gets in the way when doing work. Yet this is a key influence on Metro, according to the speaker.

So What Should a Business Do?

As a programmer, personally, I would suggest that businesses simply design software that works for them, even if it goes against the design philosophy of Metro. If your software requires using space effectively (like Photoshop does), then stick with building desktop applications for Windows 8. This will also provide backward compatibility on all your computers that use Windows XP, Vista or 7. The mouse and keyboard just cannot be beat when it comes to accuracy and speed of user input.

If there are advantages of building a Metro application (ie. touch on a tablet), then consider the principle of functionality as more important than some of the other principles of Metro design. If a 3D-look for user elements improves the experience, then use it. While leaving more open space than desktop applications, still try to use space effectively. Avoid all the fancy transition effects, since they look nice initially, but in the long run they get tiresome. Fancy effects do not make software better or more productive.

Use commonsense when designing software. If it makes sense, serves a real purpose and improves productivity, then build it the way you prefer, rather than feel forced to follow the Metro design style. If anyone questions your choice, then simply point out the first principle of Metro design, which is functionality. Also remember, functional does not mean it has to be bland or without design. Button controls that are 3D rather than flat, may stand out better and serve a purpose. Colors have meaning in the real world, so use colors effectively in your software. Don't be afraid to emulate something from the real world either, even if it does not fit into the Metro style of flat and bland.

In all the years I have worked on software for businesses, one thing stands out: Ease of use and functionality have always been vital. Color when used effectively can significantly improve the ease of use in software. One should design software so it does a task well and so it can quickly be learned. Don't feel forced to design software that looks and feels like everyone else's software. Design it for a reason. Use common sense. Be practical. If it works well use it, even if it does not look like a typical Metro application.

Take away developers' PCs and send them to Walmart

Publié: avril 21, 2012, 1:01am CEST par Chris Boss

Why is it so hard to get developers to realize the software they design is slow, bloated and does not have the "fast and fluid" experience we all would like? End users may not appreciate this about many programmers and their mindset, but many developers don't like to use old computers? They love their technology and demand leading-edge PCs.

Maybe it's time to take away their computers, and send them to Walmart to buy new ones.

Developers and Their Computers

When a programmer starts working on his software, he or she has to deal with two problems.

The first is speed of development. If it takes 20 minutes to compile an application, before he or she can even run it, then it takes forever to write software. Programming is often a write some code, compile, test, then write some more code, compile and test process, which just goes on and on. I can understand the need to be productive, so the speed of the development cycle is critical to getting software finished in a reasonable amount of time.

The second problem is that today's software often tends to be a bit sluggish, because it is so CPU intensive. The 32-bit color displays we use, high-resolution monitors, heavy emphasis on graphics and large databases we access, put heavy loads on applications. Software has to do a lot of work, just to do the basic stuff, so everything else we add as programmers, slows it down even more.

The solution for most programmers to these problems is to buy bigger and better computers.

Simply put (please correct me if I am wrong): developers rarely are satisfied with a cheap PC. Most likely they have the leading-edge in computers. Just give them that multicore CPU, with enough RAM for three computers and a mean, gamer's graphic card and a programmer is happy and productive. But this is the solution from a programmer's point of view and there is one big problem with it.

Everybody Else buys PCs from Walmart

The people who use their software often don't buy the bleeding-edge computers (unless they do CAD and 3D games or create videos). The average end user, even in businesses today, buys from Walmart or from manufacturers like Dell -- the more mass-market lower-cost models available.

These computers have lower-end CPUs and even if the microprocessors are dual-core they are lower-end dual core. Integrated graphic GPUs is the name of the game today for mass-market computers and simply put, they just don't perform like a decent discreet graphics card does.

The Programming Paradox

Programmers develop their software on the leading-edge computers, while end users consume their software on computers with likely one-quarter the performance of the developer's computer. This is the programming paradox. Hopefully most programmers have the sense to at least test their software on a low-end computer to make sure it runs well, but this still creates a problem. When the software does not run well, it is easy for a developer to say to himself: "That's what you get for having a cheap computer", rather than take a serious look at ways to improve performance in the software.

The Solution, but You won't like It

While I say this partly in jest, part of me wants to say this in all seriousness: Why not put away your computers, go to Walmart, buy the cheapest PCs you can find and make use them for the next few months. Let's see how well they do now.

OK, be Realistic

Most programmers will likely have a good laugh at the suggestion, chuckle and then move on. But guess what? I am partly serious. Not only can I suggest this, but I live by it. I have been developing a long time now (started in the 1980s), and I design and develop all my software on mass-market PCs. I do all my work on a low-end computer, with previous versions of Windows and then do my testing of the software on newer, faster, PCs with the more current operating system.

When I tell other programmers this, they usually laugh, since most would not work this way. But I have done this for years, and it changes how you look at the software you develop. Performance becomes a key issue. Currently, I work on a Windows XP computer, with a 2.5 GHz Celeron CPU and 768MB RAM.

I then test my software on my Windows 7 (and Windows 8 beta) computers. But even the more current computers I have are not leading edge. They are in the mass-market catagory. Now I did add some 3D graphic cards to two computers recently (Windows 7, Vista Home Basic/Windows 8) so I can test some OpenGL 3D stuff I have been working on, but even there I only purchased as inexpensive a 3D card I could find. Both were in the $50 range (normal retail price), so they are very low-end graphic cards.

Why? Really! Why?

Developing software, especially if you lean towards a more agile style of development, is something where you do a lot of coding, compiling, running and testing -- and continue this over and over again. I need to know how my software will run on the average computer immediately, not after some development time and later testing on a low end computer.

I feel that if my software runs well on a low-end computer , then guess what happens when it is run on better computers by end users. Simply put, "it flies" -- "fast and fluid" or what ever you want to call it. If a programmer spends a day working on their software, with a high end computer and then only tests it at the end of the day on the low end, mass market computer, it is much more difficult to go back and find what slows things down.

The Lesson

While I honestly don't expect most programmers to work the way I do (I am realistic), there is a lesson in this, which may benefit them.

Performance in software has a great deal to do with the mindset of the programmer developing it. Can developers put themselves into the shoes of those who will use their software? Even the choices we make in how (and on what computers) we develop the software can make a big difference. Performance should not be an afterthought, but instead needs to be a mindset.

Photo Credit: trekandshoot/Shutterstock

Has programming lost its way? Part Two

Publié: avril 17, 2012, 12:09am CEST par Chris Boss

Whether you are an engineer, a designer, a programmer or of any other trade that requires skill, the one lesson many have been taught early on is "keep it simple". Sadly this lesson is often lost in the name of progress, especially when it comes to programming.

Let me give you one example. I know this won't go over well with most programmers, but it needs to be said. Languages like C++ simply are not simple by design. Object-oriented programming, while possibly having some value for specific tasks, does not make programming simpler. I would venture to say that the so-called benefits of object-oriented programming has more to do with the feature set of the higher level objects that some languages provide, more so than it being accomplished using OOP.

Coding environments are no longer code editors, but they are studio environments, which do little in my opinion to make programming easier. Sure, most programmers will say they are more productive now than in the past using their favorite studio environment, but a valid question to ask: Are programmers actually writing better code today, writing code faster or are we simply looking for the computer to do all the work, rather than us do the work?

I enjoy writing code. I enjoy looking for solutions to problems and being creative in the code I write. I have found though that once some developers get away from the drag-and-drop environment, they may find themselves at a loss of how to accomplish a task. Programming tools and languages today, supposely are designed to improve productivity in software development, but in the end, much depends upon the programmer themselves.

The human mind is a better debugger than any man-made application can be. Developers of programming tools can't always be trying to solve their customers' problems by making the tools do all the work. Programmers need to learn how to code, how to debug. Coding is a skill. Debugging is a skill. When a programming environment becomes so complex that one has to read a dozen books on how to use them, then something is definitely wrong. Is that ones idea of ease of use?

Code Readability

Any programmer worth his or her salt, should be a learner. You can't know everything, but when you currently lack the knowledge necessary to accomplish a task, you must be willing to learn from other peoples' code. How quickly one grasps what code is actually doing, depends mostly on how readable the code is. Code readability in my opinion is the real test of whether a programmer has really learned the lesson of "keep it simple".

Sadly, most code I come across today is neither simple nor easily readable. I am not a C programmer (I use BASIC), but I have to examine a lot of C code to find solutions to problems, since the majority of Windows API code examples are in either C or C++. Because I am an API programmer (WIN32) I research a lot of code on the Web (ie. MSDN, Code Project, etc.) to see how to properly access Windows API's. While I don't know C (nor do I personally like it), I usually don't have too much problem making sense of good old fashioned non-OOP C code. Now when it comes to C++, half the time I just can't even make sense of what some code is doing.

Procedural Compared to Object-Oriented Code

I have found that procedural code is often far more readable than OOP code is. While I prefer the naturalness of BASIC over say C, even with a language like C, I can see C (procedural coded) as being far easier to read than C++ is. I personally find procedural style code is more likely to be "simple" and easy to read, than OOP code is.

Programming takes time (time is money as they say) and I could write procedural code much faster than OOP code, with much less preplanning involved. What is needed though, is more modular design, which improves code readability and makes debugging easier.

Code does not need to be object-oriented to be modular. Procedural code can and should be modular in design (code reusability). Even well written Assembler, with proper modular design, can be easy to read and to code. There are some valuable points made by Richard Mansfield in his "Has OOP failed?" white paper and while I would not say that all OOP is bad, I do believe it is important to not over emphasize OOP as the solution to all programming problems. OOP has not produced simpler code over all, in my opinion. It may offer some benefits in User Interface coding, but even there it is not necessarily superior.

IntelliSense or Common Sense?

While I won't go as far as to say that IntelliSense is wrong, I do believe that modern coding environments do say something about the state of programming. For the average developer, if you took away the IntelliSense feature of the code editors, he or she likely would be overwhelmed. Why? Because of the object craze, everything has to be an object and so programming languages are inundated with a huge command set, which has become more like a New York phone book (over exaggerated for emphasis) than a programming language command set.

Downside of the Bleeding Edge!

This is one thing that concerns me because as an individual software developer I find it challenging to try to keep up with the all changes in technology. I don't have the resources (or time and strength) to keep being retrained. I use what I know and build upon that over time. As I research all the new things coming along in the tech world, the one hat stands out: Developers' obsessive thirst for new things.

New stuff isn't bad, but if we always keep developing software for the bleeding edge of technology, then we lose the benefit of all our hard work in the past. We all have heard the saying "don't reinvent the wheel" and it makes sense to a developer, but sadly because everyone keeps developing for the bleeding edge, we are forced to reinvent the wheel over and over again and sometimes the wheel gets worse in each iteration. This wastes time, money and resources. It is possible to continue to use development methods that to some may seem dated, while progressively adding new technologies at a more reasonable pace.

To illustrate this, consider automobiles. They have come a long way since their invention, but amazingly there are some core designs in cars which have not changed all that much in 30 years. While many mechanics today use computers to diagnose computer problems, you may be surprised that some tools mechanics use have been around for decades and are still useful today. When I had to diagnose a severe problem with my car, the most useful tool was actually the good old vacuum guage. Sure I could plug in in the diagnostic computer (OBDII), but the vacuum gauge actually told me more than the computer did. I ended up rebuilding the entire engine in the end, but the point is that an old tool was still useful and even more helpful than a new one.

If programming languages keep changing year after year, but fail to maintain backward compatibility, then years of software development are literally thrown out the door. That wastes money, wastes time and wastes valuable experience and resources. We end up "reinventing the wheel" over and over again, but have we actually improved software that much?

If you wonder why many businesses are still using Windows XP, a more than 10 year old operating system, perhaps the old adage is true: "it if isn't broken, don't fix it". That is a valid question to ask, whether some of the software today is really innovation or simply just an obsession with the bleeding edge and the desire for something different, but not necessarily better.

For example, I live in a rural area and in just a few years I have gone from dial-up Internet, to 768Kbps high-speed and now 1.5Mbps. Now I can download stuff a lot faster, which is nice, but my overall experience with websites has not improved as dramatically as I had hoped. Website developers assume that more people have high-speed connections, so they get careless about how fast pages will load. Improved broadband speeds are lost because of careless web design. A similiar thing has happened with software. As computers get faster and faster, the experience does not necessarily get better and better.

An Interesting Experiment

An interesting experiment to try is this: If you can find an old copy of Windows 95/98 sitting around and some old CPU intensive application that dates back to Windows 95/98 (ie. 3D Modeler designer), try installing the software on a computer that is far more powerful than what was available when the software was available. For example, install it on a computer with a 1 ghz CPU with 1GB memory. Most of the computers when Windows 95/98 were around were likely less than 100MHz in speed. You may be surprised to see how "fast and fluid" the experience is using the software. Now imagine running the software on, say, a top-of-the-line, multi-core CPU we have today.

I really don't get the impression were are producing all that much better software than we did in the past. Coding environments definitely lack simplicity. Software is slower than it needs to be. Software is likely still just as riddled with bugs as it was 15 years ago. Software development is likely no more productive than it was 15 years ago. User experience is not necessarily significantly improved compared to the past.

So, I ask. Again. Has programming lost its way? I will leave that up to you to answer.

Photo Credit: Gunnar Pippel/Shutterstock

Intel's Studybook can be a success

Publié: avril 12, 2012, 11:34pm CEST par Chris Boss

Intel is putting more effort into their Atom CPU series, especially for the next generation of tablet computers. Along those lines, yesterday's Intel Studybook tablet is exciting. I really like the idea of this tablet. As the name implies, Studybook is a 7-inch tablet running Windows 7 or Android 3.x designed for students.

There is one challenge, though, and that is the Atom CPU, especially if such tablets use Windows instead of another operating system. So, is the Atom microprocessor up to the task?

The Three Hurdles of Windows Tablets

There are three basic hurdles when designing a tablet that will run the Windows operating system. Obviously power is an issue because battery life is vital to mobile devices. The choices made in things like the CPU, GPU (usually integrated into the CPU) and SSD can hugely impact battery life. The Atom CPU is designed specifically to use less power than its more powerful desktop cousins.

The second issue is the actual computing power of the CPU. There is no doubt the Atom CPU is not a powerhouse when compared to Intel desktop chips.

Lastly there is the SSD's capacity. Windows alone needs some room, just by itself, but today's Windows software tends to be bloated and resource hungry, so drive space can be a serious issue.

Is the Atom CPU Up to the Challenge?

I find the Atom to be quite powerful and a decent CPU and well suited to Windows tablets. The problem is not the microprocessor, but whether programmers are up to the task of writing efficient software for Windows tablets. Even Microsoft realizes the need to write software that performs better. Microsoft's Herb Sutter, in his talk "Why C++?", comments on the need to write software that has better performance.

This I can agree on. If software developers would concentrate more on writing software that is faster (better utilizes the CPU) and smaller (takes up less space on the valuable SSD), Windows tablets like Intel's Studybook can be a success.

Lessons from Old Timers

Today's programmers could learn something from the old timers who remember writing software on computers with less than 1MB of RAM, with floppy drives rather than huge hard drives and with CPUs that have 1/20th the computing power of the Atom microprocessor. Every computing cycle of the CPU mattered! Quality compilers which generated machine code that used less CPU cycles mattered. Code had to be efficient and well-written.

If you want to be able to write software well-suited to Windows tablets with Intel Atom and small SSDs, then to quote Herb Sutter, "the free lunch is over". We need to get back to the ways of early programming. Maybe we need to start counting CPU cycles again. Maybe we need to reconsider how (and what languages) we write our software.

Is It Possible to write Faster, Smaller Software?

Absolutely! Now, I am not a C++ programmer (nor do I use any Microsoft languages) so I can't speak for the mainstream developers today, but I do know for sure that one can write such software. I deal regularly with a community of programmers who jokingly talk about "being able to write software which can fit on a floppy disk" (see: [powerbasic.com]) . We use a compiler made by a company with the motto of "smaller, faster" and writing software for a tablet computer with an Atom processor and a small SSD is no problem at all.

Can Software Really Be That Small in Size and Still Be Powerful?

Absolutely! There are a number of programming languages capable of producing smaller, faster applications (please post about your favorite in comments). I can only speak about what I am familiar with though and that is PowerBasic. I design GUI tools for PowerBasic programmers and the one thing I have concentrated on is to keep the software as fast as possible, but still small in size.

My first generation GUI engine was a DLL that was 122 KB in size. I thought that was large at the time, over 10 years ago. A decade later, it has grown but the increased size does match all the new features it handles. The point: It is possible to write software that is tiny in comparison to much of today's software.

Software can be written so it runs fast, even on the lowly Atom. If a programmer's software runs poorly on tablets like Intel's Studybook, it's not the tablet's fault. As software developers we all need to start thinking in terms of "smaller, faster". If we do, then the experience on the next generation of Windows tablets, will definitely be "fast and fluid", even with desktop applications.

Metro, in the coming Windows 8, may be a nice new UI interface, especially designed for touch, but it won't guarantee the "fast and fluid" experience Microsoft would like to see, unless programmers do a better job in writing software.

I will be writing software for the Windows desktop, rather than Metro, and I have little doubt that it is possible to write "fast and fluid" software, with a small footprint, that will run exceptionally well on both Windows 7 today and Windows 8 tomorrow.

Photo Credit: Intel

BASIC: Making a case for an old favorite

Publié: avril 6, 2012, 6:13am CEST par Chris Boss

Are you looking for a way to increase productivity when it comes to your software development? Are you willing to try something different? How would you like to speed up software development, decrease time spent on software maintenance and improve the reliability of your software?

Many a long-time C programmer will likely tell you that C (or C++, C#) is the only serious programming language worth using today in business or the enterprise. To even suggest otherwise would likely make one a laughing stock by one's peers. Yet think about this for just a moment: Of all the software projects you or your company have undertaken, how many of them have come in over budget? How many have actually failed completely? How many, though finished, were plagued with bugs that never seem to get resolved? How easy has it been to maintain such projects, years after they were developed?

If you or your company has never experienced any of these problems, then congratulations. You need not read any further, since you obviously have a good team of programmers who have earned their keep.

But if you have experienced these problems and possibly even in excess, then, please, for a moment be willing to consider a different approach to software development. I would like to reintroduce you to a programming language, despite all the efforts to make it go away. It is a language that most of us once knew, which we may have forgotten about, which has grown and matured while we have been courting the current generation of programming languages.

It is kind of like a young boy, who befriended the girl next door when they were children. They played games together and laughed together and were best friends. But as they grew older, they left their childish ways behind and grew up, going their separate ways. But a strange thing happened one day. As young adults, they happened to meet again and started sharing their memories of the past. As they begin to learn more about each other, they realize that both had matured and that they see new things in each other, which makes them appreciate one another even more. They begin to develop a deeper affection for each other beyond what they had when they were children. You know how the story ends, don't you?

Nice Story But What Does It Have To Do With Programming?

Actually a lot! Some developers have actually experienced something similar with programming languages. When I mention the name of one specific programming language, I think some of you will get the point of the story immediately. If you don't get it, I doubt you ever will, so don't read any further and please don't ruin this beautiful story for the rest of us who do.

BASIC

What? You have to be kidding right? Actually, no I am not and if you consider the story above, I think you know where I am going with this. Now some may say, isn't the BASIC programming language truly obsolete and old fashioned? Shouldn't BASIC finally be let out to pasture? Isn't BASIC a bad programming language?

That's what some of the educators in our colleges may tell you. Thats what professional programmers, the elite of the developer world, may tell you.

I read an interesting blog, where an article discusses this subject and the author quotes someone who supposedly said the following:

It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC; as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

The author's reply impressed me, when he stated "I grew up on BASIC" and proceeded to explain about his feeling towards it.

Going back to my story earlier, one can imagine the boy when grown older, despite maybe not seeing the girl for years, because of his fond memories of her he is willing to defend her reputation to anyone who may attempt to say a bad word about that girl next door.

So why so much passion and feeling for a programming language, which by all rights is suppose to be dead and obsolete?

"I started learning programming using BASIC!"

I find it interesting that many an experienced programmer, when describing how they first learned to program a computer, often says something like "I started learning programming using BASIC". Often their story ends with them moving on to other languages that they may refer to as being more modern, professional or mainstream. Programmers who move on to languages like C++ may even deride their first language (BASIC) as being obsolete, deserving to be forgotten forever.

BASIC Has A Rich Heritage

No matter how any developer today views BASIC, one thing that is indisputable is the long and rich heritage the programming language has. Personally my first exposure to BASIC was in 1975, over 37 years ago. I learned how to write simple BASIC programs on a terminal connected via a phone line to a college mainframe computer. My high school math teacher wanted to expose his advanced students to programming.

Years later my next exposure to BASIC was my first home computer, a Texas Instruments TI-99A computer. Then came an Atari 400 and a Commodore 64. Some may be surprised to learn, that even back then BASIC was more than simply an interpreted language burned into a ROM chip. Abacus created a real BASIC compiler for the Commodore 64 and that was my first experience using Basic as a compiled language. That compiler produced some very fast running code.

Over the years I moved on to GW Basic, QBasic and then my first truly professional programming language Microsoft QuickBasic. My last DOS BASIC compiler was the Microsoft PDS 7.1 compiler. I wrote a lot of custom software over the years using PDS 7.1.

Then Came Windows

When Windows came along, now it was time to move to a GUI based programming language. The transition to Windows was difficult at first, because some of the Basic languages I tried were not as easy to learn as their DOS cousins were. I experimented with GFABasic and CA Realizer. But it was Visual Basic which finally caught my attention and VB 1.0 was quite easy to learn and use. The problem with the early versions of VB was that they generated PCode and not machine code, so speed was an issue. I was spoiled by DOS BASIC compilers. My last version of VB was 5.0 Professional and that could generate quality machine code.

A lot of programmers made a good living using Visual Basic, but sadly it died a slow death when its .NET cousin came on the scene. Many long time Basic programmers may feel like me, that BASIC lost its way when VB went the route of .NET.

So Is BASIC Dead Now?

What is so amazing about BASIC is that no matter how many people try to put it out to pasture, there are those who keep bringing it back to life and often with some amazing results. Also like the girl next door in my story, at least one (possibly more) Basic programming language never disappeared, but simply grew and matured over time, never losing what made it BASIC, but simply improving with time.

While Microsoft has left BASIC as we know in the dust, other companies, some simply one-man operations developing indie versions of Basic, keep bringing BASIC back and today it has many different flavors, from scripting languages to full-blown Windows compilers. Some of these BASICs amazingly maintain the ability to be backward compatible with BASICs used over 20 years ago, while providing many modern constructs found in more main stream languages like C++. If you like BASIC, then likely there is a flavor just for you. So where are all these BASIC programming languages and why even consider them?

Why BASIC?

Going back to my original questions, BASIC has something that other languages have often failed to appreciate. The reason BASIC was so popular in the past and the reason it is so popular today is one simple thing: It is a natural language. Let's be honest here. When you look at a language like C++, while it is a very good programming language, it can never compare to BASIC in its naturalness. It was designed to be easy to learn, easy to read and easy to code. That is why it is one the favorite languages for hobby programmers. Now some may suggest that this is the very reason BASIC is not well fitted to professional programming.

But like the king in the story "The Emperors new clothes", maybe it takes a child to remind us that things may not be as they appear. In an effort to find something better, the king and his court ended up a little bit embarrassed. Maybe the simple and obvious is not so bad after all.

The purpose of this article is to debunk that reasoning. BASIC's ease of use and excellent readability is actually a pro and not a con. If you ask a professional programmer who still uses BASIC today, why he or she uses it, most of the time the first answer will be its ease of use, its naturalness. You can write code in BASIC, shelve it for a couple of years, then come back to it years later and usually pick up right where you left off. Its naturalness is a benefit. It increases productivity significantly. It improves code maintainability significantly. It is also easier to code for many and it even can be fun.

The naturalness of a programming language is something few consider today, but it really does make a difference. I know. I have been seriously coding in some flavor of BASIC for over 20 years. I used a BASIC compiler in the days when most were only using the interpreted Basic in ROM's (ie. Commodore 64). I even wrote my own BASIC like compiler, using the Abacus Basic compiler (for C64) just so I could create an even faster basic so I could write a video game. It actually earned me over $1,000 when I sold the game to the Compute Gazette magazine. I was writing commercial quality applications for local businesses using BASIC even before the IBM PC became popular (on Kaypro computers running CPM).

To quote Richard Mansfield: "Given the freedom to choose, the public -- amateurs and small business programmers -- greatly prefers Basic and 4GLs". Why? Because there are advantages to "languages that are deliberately constructed to resemble natural human language as much as possible" as Mansfield suggests. I agree.

After all these years of programming using BASIC, I can attest to its ability to be used to write commercial quality software and I still write software using BASIC today. Its naturalness is not only appealing, but it increases productivity significantly.

The Girl Next Door

Like the girl next door in the story, BASIC has grown and matured over the years. What one loved about her in her youth, is still there, but today she has qualities that make her even more beautiful than ever. Yes, she has turned out to not only be a beauty, but also a faithful friend, a devoted worker and she has new charms one never thought she ever could have. She has even more reasons to be loved today, than she did in her youth and her beauty is not just skin deep. It runs to the core of who she is.

This is no fairytale, no imaginary story. She really lives (I mean BASIC of course).

BASIC still lives on because it is an excellent and productive programming language. Its lives and breathes ease of use and naturalness. If BASIC is so easy that a child can use it, imagine what a professional can do with it?

This much I can say from experience. BASIC's naturalness is why I use it professionally. Code readability is exceptional with BASIC, which makes coding faster, in my opinion. Believe it or not, when I get in a real coding mood (productive) I almost think in BASIC. The code flows.

BASIC Here, BASIC There, BASIC Everywhere!

Whether for Windows, Linux or the Mac, there is likely a BASIC somewhere just for you. Please check out the following web sites and their extensive list of BASIC programming languages:

Some of these BASICs deserve special mention. While I have not personally used these Basic languages, from my own research I have found that they are quite popular with many users, so they deserve to be highlighted.

(If you have found another flavor of Basic which you think deserves mentioning, please post a comment to this article and note it.)

My Personal BASIC Favorites

So what about me personally? What are my favorite BASIC languages? The first one, I am only in the learning process with it, but it still is a favorite simply because of how it was created and the popularity it has developed. The language is called ThinBasic.

It is free and a BASIC scripting language. It was written using my favorite BASIC language (see below) and if you are a hobby programmer who wants to learn BASIC, I think it might just be the one for you. It has an excellent website with an online forum to help you get started learning how to use it. It is a quality scripting language and very well designed.

The language can even be extended with modules; for example there is an excellent 3D graphics module available. I feel that it would be an excellent BASIC to use in educational settings, too, so if you are a teacher and want to start teaching your students how to program using BASIC, then please check out ThinBasic. It also should be noted that the ThinBasic language was patterned after the professional version of BASIC that was used to create it. Students who enjoy ThinBasic, can later move on to a professional compiler with a similar language and syntax.

So what BASIC do I use professionally ? It is called PowerBASIC and, boy, does it have a rich heritage. Back in the DOS days, if you were programming then, likely you heard of Borland's famous TurboBasic. It was the only BASIC compiler that some may feel ever came close to unseating Microsoft's QuickBasic compiler.

Borland sold the rights to TurboBasic back to its developer, Bob Zale, and he renamed it PowerBASIC and he started his own company to sell this powerful compiler. PowerBASIC is a small company that has had to work very hard to build its reputation over the years without the backing of a huge software corporation behind it. Today it is one of the software industries best kept secrets. Why?

Because there are a few things that make PowerBASIC stand out from the rest. First is its commitment to quality. I personally am a stickler when it comes to reliable software. My goal is to create software which is as close as possible to being 100% bug free. The programming language one uses is critical to this goal. PowerBASIC has proven itself to be reliable. I have used PowerBASIC for a good 10 years now, and I can honestly say I have been very satisfied with its reliability.

Second, is executable speed. As long as I have been programming, I have concentrated on developing software that runs as fast as possible. In my opinion, PowerBASIC produces fast executables, which are on par with what any C compiler can produce today and if you find you can't get enough speed out of the compiler using BASIC, then it also supports inline assembler.

Third, I want to write software with as small a footprint as possible and once again PowerBASIC has come through. I know this from experience. PowerBASIC programmers like to joke about being able to write large software applications which can still fit on a floppy disk. If you want to write applications which are well-suited to the limited hardware of todays Windows tablet PC's, then PowerBasic is worth your investigation.

PowerBASIC also has an online peer to peer forum, which over and over again has proven itself to have a community of programmers with some of the most experienced Windows API programmers I have come across. PowerBASIC takes this community forum so seriously, they even do not permit members to use an alias. It is a community of real people, who over the years have been sharing their knowledge and experience with one another.

PowerBASIC also has in recent years been supported by some quality third-party developers who have produced tools and libraries for use with Powerbasic (I am one of those developers). You can find more information about these add-ons for PowerBASIC on their website, but just to name a few that I am most impressed with there is an excellent Grid control called EGrid, an amazing Graphic engine called GDImage, a powerful skin engine called WinLift, an excellent third party Visual Designer called FireFly and others.

If you are a Visual Basic programmer who still uses VB 6.0, then PowerBASIC would be a great addition to your toolbox for building fast DLL's. With PowerBasic you have full access to the Windows API, plus a rich BASIC command set.

Maybe you doubt that any business with any sense would use Basic. Well take a look at this list of PowerBASIC customers and see if there are any reputable companies on it.

BASIC Still Lives!

Yes, BASIC is not only still alive, but it is thriving. There is likely a BASIC which can fit your specific needs, whether it be for Windows, Linux , Mac or even Android. Why not check out the lists provided in the links above and download a few versions today.

Photo Credits: Lilya/Shutterstock (top); chaoss/Shutterstock

Windows tablets and the enterprise, what's the problem?

Publié: mars 23, 2012, 2:47am CET par Chris Boss

I have repeatedly read how Windows 7 is not well-suited to touch, which is the reason some people are waiting for Windows 8 before buying a tablet. Microsoft's solution is Metro -- the next generation touch interface for Windows. Yes, Metro is touch friendly, but is it really the answer to the enterprise when it comes to Windows tablets?

Windows 7 is not any less suited to touch and a tablet PC than Windows 8. Sure Windows 8 does offer a few perks that make touch better as far as the operating system is concerned, such a better on-screen keyboard. But as far as applications a business may want to design themselves specific to tablets, I don't see any advantage Windows 8 has over Windows 7.

Actually Windows 7 already has the key features necessary to impliment quality touch applications. It supports the WM_TOUCH and WM_GESTURE messages (which is how WIN32 handles touch). Two-point touch is sufficient for most touch applications, so today's Windows 7 tablets are completely viable for business use right now.

Metro and Touch Targets Consumers

Maybe I am biased, but I find the Windows desktop better suited to business applications than Metro. Yes, Metro does have some exciting features, such as Contracts (a way of sharing between applications), but this does not mean it is significantly better than the desktop for business apps.

Metro has its origins, not from computers, but from a phone user interface. Yes, the world is saturated with smartphones today, so some people think that a Windows tablet should act more like a smartphone than a computer. But for a moment, consider this: Windows 8 Consumer Preview has a number of apps you can download from the Microsoft app store, such as games, entertainment, weather apps, etc. Have you seen any serious business apps included in the Windows Store?

I think Microsoft could make a big impression on its business customers by including just one serious business program as a Metro app. The next generation of Office will still be a desktop style application. What an impression they could have made it they had included just one part of Office as a Metro app, but it hasn't happened yet. Office 15 will come with Windows on ARM devices. Microsoft has insinuated for free but hasn't explicitly said so.

My impression right now is that Metro targets consumers. Consumers want simple and easy touch UIs that let them browse the web, send email, read books and so forth. Businesses though are different. A tablet needs to be a tool, not a toy or a distraction. This does not mean that Metro can't handle a real world business application. But what makes Metro any better suited to business applications than the Windows desktop?

The Problem Is With Software

(This is where I will diverge from the mainstream viewpoint, so maybe you ought to sit down (if not already) before you read further.)

I have been working with the Windows API (WIN32) for nearly 10 years now, so I think that I can reasonably grasp how Windows works under the hood. I design tools for programmers and not for consumers and understand the challenges developers face in writing software. I am not your typical "bleeding edge" style programmer, who is always designing for the next generation computers, but rather one who recognizes the need to write software that runs well even on the typical low-cost, mass-market computer and even older legacy computers.

Maybe because my experience dates back to the old days when computers were very limited in power (can you say "floppy disk"?) and a programmer had to find ways to get the most out of minimal hardware, my viewpoints are different; I am not alone.

No matter the reasons why, more of the problem with Windows tablets and touch has to do with how software is developed, rather than it being a problem with the current Windows tablets running Windows 7. I don't feel that Windows 8 deals with this problem any better than does Windows 7, so things won't get any better when Windows 8 is available. The UI (Metro) may be different, but the root cause will still be there.

To start with, the majority of our software today is developed using Microsoft's own programming tools. I won't say they are bad; lots of quality software is built using them. But as a programmer who works with non-Microsoft programming tools, I can honestly say this: One of the terms common programmers, especially those who don't use MS development tools, is "bloated". What does a programmer mean when he or she says that? It means the software uses too much of a computer's resources, such as the CPU, GPU, memory and disk drive space.

If you can write an application that is half the size, uses half the memory and runs twices as fast, won't you get a more "fast and fluid" experience from it?

Rather than deal with this inherent problem, Microsoft programmming languages in recent years have added a feature they feel will compensate, called "asynchronous" to many of its languages; so when an application makes a call to an objects method that is asynchronous, it returns immediately no matter how long it takes for the code to execute. Metro applications will use this technique even more.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but asynchronous code does not speed things up on a computer, but actually slows it down. Why? Because, at its core this simply means you are using threads to have multiple blocks of code run at the same time. Guess what? Threads have overhead (called a "context switch"), which actually puts a greater load on a CPU and not less. This is why long-time WIN32 programmers have learned to use threads very carefully and only when they really would make a difference (ie. reading external data input).

If you doubt this then read a book written by somebody who knows: Multithreading Applications in Win32: The complete guide to threads by Jim Beveridge and Robert Wiener and published by Addison Wesley Developers Press.

Root Cause -- How Software Is Developed?

Another reason for bloated software today is likely something most programmers don't want to admit: Over-reliance on OOP (Objected Oriented Programming). This is something the majority of programmers would disagree with me on, but there is good reason to believe that Object Oriented Programming has not only increased the bloat in software today, but it may even decrease productivity in software development.

Metro and WinRT are highly dependent upon OOP, particularly COM (which is really a form of OOP when you think about). Microsoft programming languages are so object oriented today that I doubt many Windows programmers would even know how to write a Windows application without using any OOP at all.

The core Windows API, on the other hand, is basically a flat API (some more recent additions though do use COM). Now as far as 3D graphics are concerned, one of the reasons I chose OpenGL over DirectX is because it too is a flat API requiring less dependence upon COM and OOP.

Richard Mansfield wrote an excellent white paper about why OOP is not the panacea many think it is. He had some valid points. If you don't know who Richard Mansfield is, then you likely are a lot younger than me. He was the editor of Compute magazine back in the `80s, and anyone who ever learned how to program the Commodore 64 definitely knows who he is. His book on 6502 machine language was so well-written it taught me well enough so I could write my own compiler for the C64. Obviously then, there are some experienced programmers who feel that a more procedural style of coding can have benefits over OOP, so it's not just me who feels this way.

If the principles of writing efficient software we learned years ago were implimented when writing software for today's Windows tablet computers, I think "fast and fluid" would definitely be the norm. One of the things us old-time programmers may appreciate is the importance of using compilers that generate fast, small and efficient machine code.

Today, surprisingly, many programming languages are going the route of being interpreted rather than producing pure machine code. Sure pure machine code is not cross platform, but if you are writing software only for x86 Windows, that is not an issue. If you want "fast and fluid" nothing beats fast machine code. Even compiled languages are so bloated today, that you really don't get the full benefit from them.

Today, Intel Atom CPU's are regularly criticised as being too slow, lacking power. Windows tablets (the reasonably priced ones) usually come with an Atom CPU. But it is programmers who are most likely to make this criticism. Why? Because their software runs too slow on these CPUs. But the problem is not the CPUs, but the software. A well-written WIN32 application can run very fast even on the Atom CPU.

Is WIN32 Really That Powerful For Tablet Software Development?

Despite those who like to refer to the Windows API (WIN32) as ancient, and lacking power, and those who would be lost without so called modern OOP, there are those who can (and do) write Windows software using non-Microsoft languages, without OOP and using the pure Windows API. Guess what? The software they write is much smaller, faster and less bloated than most software today.

Don't appreciate this? Check out this developer's website and download his amazing program called Toolbar Paint. Its a great toolbar bitmap editor, which was surprisingly written using assembler.

Toolbar Paint is only 56 KB (yes, kilobytes) in size! When was the last time you used a Windows application which is only 56 KB?

The programming circles I deal with most use a much higher level language than assembler, but yet they too are building applications that size in the kilobytes, rather than in megabytes. Such small-size applications are what Windows tablets need today. All one has to do is add touch to such applications and design the user interface with slightly larger UI elements -- and now you have well-written, resource light, application that will run great on today's generation of Windows 7 tablet PCs and even tomorrow's Windows 8 PCs (on the desktop).

Maybe it is how we write software that needs to change, if we want to use tablet computers in the enterprise.

Has programming lost its way?

Publié: mars 21, 2012, 1:05am CET par Chris Boss

The average end user has no idea what goes into developing software. All they see is whether the software works or not, whether it looks good or whether it is easy to use. But for developers it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed with new technologies every day and programming, rather than getting easier, at times becomes more and more challenging.

Programmers often are at the mercy of those who create the development tools they use. Drag and drop, IntelliSense, XAML, code editors replaced by Studio environments, debuggers, OOP and more OOP. Now we have Metro, WinRT and a totally new world of Windows development. Has programming really become easier and easier, with all the choices we have today? Or has programming lost its way?

What Is Programming All About?

1. Bits and bytes. When you really come down to it, programming is all about bits and bytes. The text on our screens are bytes. The graphics we display are bytes. Memory managers handle bytes. A complex data structure is just a lot of bits and bytes. True, to the end user, they see words, they see pictures, they see all sorts of data, but to the programmer, his job is to move a lot of bytes around to the right place at the right time.

2. Logic. Yes, programming is all about logic. If this, then do that. Do this, while that exists. At its simplist, programming is all about logic. If the logic is good, the software works correctly. If the logic is bad (in error) it will not work as intended. It is as simple as that.

3. Lots of math. If there is one thing that I have learned over the years, it is this: When it comes to programming, "math counts" (not a pun). Yes, the better a programmer can translate a task into its mathematic components, the better his or her software will be and the faster they can code it. Now some tasks are so complex, that only the most advanced programmers are capable of handling them. I have great respect for the people who write things like video codecs or graphic engines. Likely an excellent math background plays a large role in their skills.

Now notice, I haven't mentioned XAML, OOP, COM or any other technology. No matter what high-level language or technology is used by a programmer, it all culminates into much simpler things like I mention above. In the end, a computer must execute some machine code and then make logic decisions and move lots of bytes around. It does not know what high-level languages we have used. It just knows bits and bytes and logic.

To appreciate this, consider the latest iPad that Apple released March 16. Look at all the excitement about the new Retina display and the more powerful CPU. Guess what? Four times more pixels in a display, means four times more data for software to move around, which means more space in memory to store all those bytes, more space on a disk drive to handle all that data and a CPU that is four times more powerful to handle the four times more display data. See how simple that was?

I just burst your bubble, because this means that you have literally lost much of the benefit of the faster CPU in the iPad, because it now has four times more work to do. Programmers have to consider things like this. Imagine a person who cleans houses for a living. When others see a huge mansion with dozens of rooms, they see a dream home. When the house cleaner sees a mansion, the first words out of his or her mouth is: "I would hate to have to clean all those rooms, what a nightmare that would be". Can you better appreciate the challenges programmers face now?

Two Skills Sometimes Lacking

If I was asked the question: "What do you think is most often lacking in programmers today?" There are two skills that I feel are critical to software development which are more likely to be lacking.

1. Understanding end users. One of the biggest problems developers can have is understanding their end users. No matter how good we are at programming, this does not mean we understand what the end user wants or really needs. Sadly, our own technical skills can even get in the way. We can get so caught up with the latest technology, that we easily "miss the forest for the trees", as they say. A good question to ask, when developing software, is: "Are the choices I make leaning towards the complex or towards the simple?"

Also we need to ask ourselves whether we really do understand our end users. In my own experiences, I have found that the many years of writing custom software for local businesses has benefited me greatly. I have written software for large companies, as well as for small mom-and-pop operations. The one thing I learned early on, was that I needed to come down off my programmers "high horse" and take the time to really learn what my customers wanted and needed.

The first step I would take with a new customer often was simply to just spend some time learning about what they do. I would say something like "give me a tour of your business and show me how you do things now". This would often lead to questions like: "Why do you do this or that?" or "Explain to me how this works?" I may be a programmer, but that does not mean I am a doctor, a lawyer, a machinist or a retail store owner. When it comes to the tasks my customer has to deal with daily, I am the dummy, not them.

It is easy for developers to think they know what an end user wants, but still get it all wrong. To illustrate, consider what sometimes happens when a parent thinks he or she really knows what toy the young children want. The parent purchases this really big, huge and expensive plastic toy, with all sorts of bells and whistles and when he or she takes it out of the box for the child, the five year-old plays with the box instead. How humiliating that is! The parent got it all wrong. Purchase an empty box, and the child would be just as happy. Do we as programmers, some times make the same mistakes?

So to write good software, a programmer needs to be a good learner, a good listener.

2. Debugging is an art. Now if there was just one thing that I would want to teach a new, young and budding, developer, it would be this: Debugging is an art form, not a technology. New developers often ask experienced programmers: "What debugger would you recommend?". My answer? "You are the debugger, and no computer technology can replace you".

Debugging is an art form, a skill, which is hard to teach another. To be a good debugger, requires more of the skills of a Sherlock Holmes, than anything else. In my case, I design tools for programmers. This means not only do I have to debug my own software, but often when customers have problems I have to help them debug their software too. You see, the only way I can make sure that the problem is not with my tools is to help the customer find the actual cause of a problem. In a few cases, my code has a bug, but many times the customer's code is the cause, and I had to work with the client to uncover the real problem.

If you were to ask my customer base (which are all programmers), what is one of best features of my software tools, likely the most common answer would be its reliability and stability. I actually have had customers try to break my software on purpose, just to test it out. One told me he would pass bad parameters to functions just to see what would happen. Fortunately, I write code with a lot of parameter checking in it, so it is more difficult to break it. The point is, that if I had not learned the art of debugging, I would not be able to provide software that is reliable, especially in the minds of other programmers.

Now when my customers ask me how I debug software, they're often surprised to find that I don't use any debugger software at all, not even the ones that exist in the compiler I use. All I need is a simple debug window (which I added to my tool) to display text at key points of a program's execution and a messagebox and the BEEP command in the programming language and the skill to debug.

In rare cases, I may even create a debug log file of my own design. Yet, without all the fancy tools other programmers use, I can develop some very reliable software. Now this does not mean debuggers have no place, just because I don't use them. The point is, that programmers may expect a debugger to accomplish something that depends more on the programmer than the debugger.

Now there is more to debugging than this, and I don't think I could even write an article to try to teach others how to do it the way I don But the point is that the programmer is the debugger. Unless the programmer views himself as the debugger, then no tools he or she uses will every accomplish what is required. So if you do use debug tools, try an experiment to see how much you can accomplish without them. I have nothing against using a debugger, but the debugger can not replace the programmer.

A Shock To My System

From my bio attached to this article, you obviously realize that I am a long time Windows API programmer (WIN32). What you may not realize is that I don't use OOP. I don't currently use a Microsoft Programming language, and I definitely don't use any .NET frameworks.

I have used Microsoft languages in the past, such as QuickBasic, PDS 7.1, Visual Basic 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0 Professional, but it has been at least 10 years since I have done anything substantial using a Microsoft programming language.

So it was interesting last year when I downloaded the Windows 8 Developer Preview with all the Microsoft programming tools and installed it on one of my computers. I am very interested in Metro; since the programming language I use is not Metro-ready yet, I had no choice but to play around with Visual Studio.

I am no stranger to Windows. I visit websites like CodeProject and MSDN to read articles that interest me, trying to learn new things about using the Windows API. I have the Windows SDK installed on my computer for reference, and I use some of the tools with the SDK -- like the Depends utility. I enjoy playing with things like the Control Spy utility found on MSDN to see how different control classes work.

I am also not a novice when it comes to the Windows API. I have learned a great deal about it during the last 10 years and this has allowed me to learn some advanced coding. For example, I developed my own drag-and-drop engine, so it is easy to build WYSIWYG style visual designers. I have written a number of custom control classes, such as a Masked Edit control, Canvas control, MCI control, Files Listbox control, Property Listbox control, Shape/Hotspot/SplittarBar control, drag handle control, Turtle Graphics control and my latest glCanvas control.

I wrote my own proprietary 2D sprite engine for my Canvas control that can handle things like frame animation, antialiasing, alphablending and collision detection. I have written image filters for drawing bitmaps. My glCanvas control is a hybrid control which blends my Canvas control features with an OpenGL based 3D scripting language.

I have worked with things like ownerdraw, DIBs, complex window regions, multimonitor support, theme drawing, OpenGL, threads, subclassing and superclassing, memory DC drawing and more.

So what was my experience when I tried to use the latest Visual Studio as someone who hasn't really worked with a Microsoft language for 10 years? Shock is the only word I can use. I am used to coding in a programming language that is only a few megabytes to download. I use a simple code editor IDE and I write code, lots of it. I built my own drag-and-drop visual designer with a code generator / Smart Parser technology which integrates with my programming languages code editor.

By comparison, Visual Studio is this giant development environment that requires gigabytes to install, not megabytes. I don't think I am a total idiot, but I can not find my way around the IDE. Very few things make sense to me. XAML is just so totally foreign to me, just forget that (So what does XAML have to do with Windows?).

Even the Metro form designer is not intuitive to me. Now I may not use Microsoft programming languages today, but I have plenty of higher-end graphic applications that I can use, such as CorelDraw and other visual oriented design tools, so I think I can find my way around a drag-and-drop environment. So it makes me wonder, what has become of programming today? Has programming really become easier today? Have we as programmers lost perspective? Do we even know how to code anymore?

Visual Studio is an excellent programming tool in the right hands. But for one who does not use Microsoft programming languages like myself, I do wonder what has happened to programming. So, what is so easy about software development today? Will the programming languages of the future require terrabytes rather than gigabytes?

If development tools are so complex today, has all of this power in the hands of programmers trickled down to the end users? Well, we still get complaints about software being slow, bloated, buggy and not intuitive. I know, you can't please everyone, but are we as developers really accomplishing the ultimate goal of making our end users happy and productive? Remember the analogy of the child prefering the box to the toy and look at customers' behavior, such as the challenge so many businesses have moving away from Windows XP.

I finish this article with the question I started with: Has programming lost its way?

Photo Credit: Gordon Warlow/Shutterstock

Does Windows 8 programming lack creativity?

Publié: mars 17, 2012, 4:46pm CET par Chris Boss

Windows 8 brings a totally new user interface model with its Metro environment, which is receiving mixed response from developers and end-user customers. The tile-like UI certainly is different from the classic desktop.

Does Metro mean that software will be even more creative than in previous Windows generations? Is there an inherent flaw in software design that prevents us from getting better software and will it still exist with Windows 8?

One Size Fits All Doesn't Always Work

I learned an interesting lesson when switching from developing end-user software to designing tools for programmers. I quickly realized that one size (or model) doesn't fit all. I had to make a choice. Do I build software tools so they work exactly like everyone elses' or do I design tools with the ability to be different things to different people?

A common rule you will often see touted in the software industry is that user interfaces should always follow certain fixed rules so all software is consistant. For years, Microsoft encouraged Windows software developers to maintain a certain look and feel. Now with Windows 8, Metro once again forces a certain look and feel (no windows, full screen and flat-looking UI elements). In the early years of the personal computer, there were no such rules so programmers were, in my opinion, more likely to be creative, to come up with new and exciting ways for users to interact with their software.

True, they may have copied some things they liked that others did, but in general programmers tried to find ways to do things better than they did with previous software. An outstanding example was GEOS for the Commodore 64. The C64 was not designed for a GUI, but some exceptionally creative programmers made it possible nonetheless. A term that best describes this mindset would be "thinking outside the box". I don't feel that same freedom today, but more and more I feel the pressure to conform to so-called UI standards, even if they may not be well suited to a specific task at hand. Windows 8 and its Metro interface continues to promote this less than creative mindset, despite its intended goal to do otherwise.

How Can a Programmer Be Creative When Developing Software?

So how does a creative programmer view software development? It's like the difference between Lego blocks and a block of wood. Lego blocks are fun and initially more creative because you can create all sorts of stuff quickly that may excite yourself and others. Today's programming styles are more like using Lego blocks. But a block of wood offers more creativity. Really? Yes. While a block of wood initially is much more difficult to turn into a work of art, in the long run it offers more choices. Lego blocks will always be block shaped and the only way to get something that isn't a block is for the manufacturer to design a specific Lego object that is not a block; that is fine for a toy, but not for software. A block of wood inspires the imagination, and an experienced woodworker will allow his/her imagination to run wild and with the right skills; it is amazing what the block of wood can become -- from a work of art to a practical tool or device.

Software development should be more like working with that block of wood. Provide a skilled craftsman with the tools to turn it into anything. Will Metro encourage such creativity? Or will it encourage conformity to the point of making software development less creative? These are valid questions.

One Size Should Not Fit All

A lesson can be learned from something in nature. Water is a perfect example of something where one size can't fit all. In general when something gets colder, it also increases in density (gets heavier per cubic inch). Metal, concrete and really almost everything we can think of follows this rule. Water, though, is unique in nature. It also follows this rule, until the point of freezing where something amazing happens. It actually gets less dense (lighter). It breaks the rule. Why is this important? Because when a body of water like a lake freezes, if ice were heavier than water it would sink and in time a lake could freeze solid. Ice would sink to the bottom, then the top layer of water would begin to freeze and this would continue until all the water was frozen.

But water is different. Because ice does not sink and is lighter than water, it floats; as it gets thicker, it shields the water below from the cold and acts like an insulator. I am sure the fish in the lake appreciate this very much. Water demonstrates intelligent design, but does our software?

Can you see the point? Sometimes it is good to do things a little differently, especially when doing so improves things significantly. Similiarly, with software development, there are times to "think outside the box" so to speak, to be creative, especially when it improves the user experience and increases productivity.

Change Only Works When It Really Makes a Difference

Not all tasks are the same, so neither should all software be the same. Sometimes an old standard need not be changed simply because it works so well, while at other times something totally new may be required.

I had a customer for whom I designed some custom software. Originally it was a DOS application, but eventually I created a Windows version, too. What was interesting: The company preferred the DOS version. You don't do things exactly the same in Windows as you would in a DOS. They were so productive with the DOS version of the application, I chose to do something totally different. I wrote a Windows version which in the key areas (data entry) emulated the DOS application. It still had some Windows UI features, but where it counted acted more like its DOS cousin. It was a hybrid, not quite DOS, but not quite all Windows. Why? Productivity to the end user was more important than consistancy on a platform or having the latest UI.

Some outsiders might have thought my application looked ugly and failed to meet proper Windows standards. But this customer for years told me he has never found any software that was a good as the one I designed for him. The company still uses both versions of this software, DOS and Windows, together, to this day. In this case, I found that a hybrid approach (combining the old with the new) was better.

In some of my previous articles I proposed Windows 8 would improve with a better blend Metro and desktop motifs. It doesn't have to be one or the other (that actually lacks creativity). Rather than force software developers to pick one UI model or the other, why can't they be better blended. Windows 8 has the WinRT (Metro) and WIN32 (Desktop), so why not create a unique Blend API that merges the two together. It could follow the rules of the Windows 8 sandbox approach if necessary, but offer some more choices for long time WIN32 programmers. Why not be a little more creative!

Windows API (Desktop) is Under-Utilized

With terms like legacy, one might think that the long-time Windows API (WIN32), which is at the core of what in Windows 8 is called the desktop, is somehow obsolete, old fashioned and even flawed. Yet, to a creative programmer the Windows API is a rich environment with almost unlimited possibilities. The reality is that the Windows API and its features are under-utilized.

Let me give you some examples. In Windows there is a feature called OwnerDraw. What this means is that a number of UI elements (controls) in the operating system, such as a Listbox or Combobox can be customized so a programmer can change their appearance significantly. Another feature in the Windows API, called subclassing (also superclassing), allows a programmer to modify how a control works and responds to user input. For example, it's difficult for me to convert a normal Edit control (Text Box) to a Masked Edit control, where user input is more controlled.

Another very powerful feature in the Windows API is the DIB engine. DIB stands for Device Independent Bitmap. Basically it allows a programmer to define the format of a memory bitmap to what ever he or she prefers. It also allows a programmer direct access to the pixels of the bitmap so he or she can write extremely fast graphic routines. I learned how to leverage the Windows DIB API's and wrote my own proprietary 2D Sprite engine, which supported movement of non-rectangular objects, image flipping, frame animation and even alphablending and anti-aliasing. Now do you realize that the Windows DIB engine has existed since Windows 95 and is just as viable today on Windows 8? This means I could do advanced animation on any Windows computer from Windows 95 to Windows 8 (and it works perfectly on Windows 8).

In designing the programming tools that my business sells, I find that the most powerful thing I can offer to other programmers is the ability to tap into all those unique features found in the Windows API, so they can build software any way they want to, without limits. It is not up to me how they design their user interfaces. I want them to feel free to do whatever they feel is best for their own software. Rather than force specific user interface rules, I find it is better to provide more ways to customize an application's user interface.

Is It Possible to Support the Entire Range of Windows Versions?

Some of my peers in the programming world criticize me still supporting legacy versions of Windows -- from Windows 95 to Millennium Edition (yes, you read that right). The common mindset in software development usually is "drop the old" and "build for the new", no matter the cost. Sadly, so much time is wasted because of this that programmers have to constantly keep upgrading their skills and end up throwing away tons of good code. But isn't it more creative to find ways to keep what still works while merging it with the new?

Do you realize that since Windows 95, the Windows operating system was designed so one could easily do this ? The designers of Windows put some very smart technology into the OS from day one. No not COM. No not DirectX. But a very simple approach called DLL, or Dynamic Link Library. But what some programmers may not appreciate is that this dynamic library model has the ability to allow an application to poll the library to see whether certain APIs exist in it or not.

By using this simple technique one programmers can build applications and even their own libraries that are intelligent. This way one can build hybrid applications which can run on all versions of Windows and when it is run on a newer version, to access newer features of the operating system. This is not just theory. I have done it and I have customers who are currently developing commercial software using this technology. Sometimes the simplest solutions are better.

Microsofts GEM -- the Windows API

Does Microsoft really appreciate the true GEM they have in the Windows API (WIN32)?

The Windows development world has moved from framework to framework over the years, starting with MFC to todays .NET. Yet software doesn't get better and better, but it is getting more bloated and resource hungry and actually slower. Yet I deal with a community of programmers who are constantly digging deeper and deeper into the Windows API, producing new and exciting products and tools that push the limits of the OS, while keeping the software so small that it can fit on a floppy disk and all using the pure Windows API.

Some may want to see proof of this, so here is a good example. The developer creates programming tools that just amaze me. I would consider this programmer to be an expert when it comes to the Windows API. He is also creative and his software shows it. He has two products in particular that demonstrate this, GDImage and WinLift. GDImage is a graphic engine that is amazing, and WinLift is a skin engine. Yet these libraries are absolutely tiny by today's standards and they are "fast and fluid", too, and they both demonstrate the power of the Windows API as well as true creativity.

Software Should Emulate the Real World

Rather than be confined to a fixed set of user interface rules, software should be designed to better emulate the real world tasks they copy. A simple, yet so obvious example, is how in an application that has a video player, it is common to have button controls that emulate the buttons on a VCR player. The consistancy here is not based on platform requirements, but on real-world tasks instead.

Especially software used in a business environment, we should design software that emulates the real world tasks they copy. For example, programmers may be encouraged to only use the style of button controls that the operating system provides by default. The buttons all look the same. The only way to have buttons with different colors is to draw them yourself using ownerdraw, so programmers may simply opt for the standard looking buttons, all the same color and style.

Yet in the real world physical buttons are rarely the same, nor are they always the same color. Color is often used to make physical buttons stand out -- for a reason! It is common with machines to have one button a specific green color while another has specific red color. Color has meaning. So why don't programmers use color with button controls more often? Could it be they are fixed on UI standards and the desire to make software which looks like everyone elses?

The Power Has Been With Us All Along, But Do We Use It?

Isn't it a bit funny when you consider that many computer manufacturers tout the 3D capabilities of the video cards/chips in their computers today and that when you look at Windows 8 and its Metro-style applications that they look awfully flat by design? True, you can have 3D in Metro games, but where are all the 3D UI elements for normal applications? The real world is 3D, so why can't we use 3D more in everyday applications? That was my feeling, when my business produced it latest generation of programming tools.

Fortunately for me, the Windows API has long allowed third-party additions to the operating system, particularly OpenGL. Now OpenGL is considered obsolete when it comes to Metro. Fortunately for now, Windows 8 (with the right drivers) still supports OpenGL on the so-called legacy desktop. Because OpenGL has the ability to be used in multiple child windows (controls) at the same time in the same application, it is quite natural for me to want to design a custom control that uses OpenGL for 3D. I am not talking about a full-size single window OpenGL application. I am talking about a real custom control that provides OpenGL. I can create a form and then add multiple 3D controls where ever I need them. I even wrote my own proprietary 3D OpenGL based scripting language for the control and all using the Windows API and OpenGL API's.

But that isn't all! Once again, I used the hybrid approach. DirectX is all or nothing, but not so with OpenGL (which is why I used it). The custom control I designed is a hybrid. It combines the GDI (and even my 2D proprietary sprite engine) with OpenGL 3D. Now that is not the common approach to 3D, but yet it works great, so why not? Why not a real 3D control which you can plug into a normal Desktop application?

So whether it is 3D, animation or simply good business graphics, the power has been with us all along. Yes, the so called legacy desktop (WIN32) has always had the ability to amaze us. Don't believe it? Just for fun I installed a software OpenGL driver for the original Windows 95 and guess what? Yes, my little old custom 3D OpenGL control works perfectly on an ancient Windows 95 computer (albeit a little slowly). It also works very well on the Windows 8 consumer preview too.

All Is Not Lost!

Despite all the negativity, Metro is not the failure many would have us believe. It is something new and different, which in time will open up more possibilities, especially on tablet PC's. Also Microsoft was smart to leave us the desktop side of Windows, too, since it still is very important.

In reality, the problem is that Metro and the desktop are more like an "odd couple", with little in common. But like any good long-time marriage, the partners over time need to better blend together. The more separate they become, then the more likely they will divorce and we all know which one will suffer the most -- the desktop!

Maybe there is still hope for this unlikely marriage. Maybe the two can better appreciate the other and by the time Windows 8 is released, the two will become one. Thats my hope. Call me an optimist.

Photo Credits: StudioSmart/Shutterstock (top); Microsoft (others)

Windows 8 Metro found wanting

Publié: mars 14, 2012, 8:48pm CET par Chris Boss

To continue from my "first impressions" review about Windows 8 Consumer Preview, I spent some time using it on a desktop computer this time. I now have both a tablet PC and a desktop with the OS installed. While I do want to see Windows 8 succeed, my impressions are not as positive on the desktop as the tablet, and I feel that some rethinking needs to go into Windows 8 and Metro before they're ready for release, especially for long-time Windows users.

The whole reason for the Preview (beta) of Windows 8 is to get feedback from users so Microsoft can make sure they do it right. I will try not to be overly critical, but I do want to be honest. I would rather see Microsoft hold back Windows 8 until they get it right, than to see it released too soon and not get the market acceptance they desire. So here goes.

The Good News

My first concern is about backward compatibility for desktop applications and so far I am very pleased with the Consumer Preview. It even fixed one flaw I found on the Developer Preview (with layered windows), so that was good. Windows 8 has proven to be very backward compatible with lots of WIN32 (so-called legacy) code I tested and as far as I can see, the Windows API is alive and well. I tested the following:

All standard Windows controls
Many Common controls and RichEdit
MDI (Multiple Document Interface)
Custom window classes (custom controls)
GDI graphics
DIB graphics
Complex window regions
Threads
Timers
Ownerdraw and some customdraw
Drag and drop
MCI multimedia including video, MIDI and audio (ie. MP3)
OpenGL (1.0 to 2.0 API's)
Subclassing
Superclassing

Big Difference Between Touch and Mouse

There is a very big difference between using touch and the mouse when it comes to legacy applications, so be prepared. Some of the Common controls in desktop Windows (WIN32) are not well-suited to touch and would benefit from some serious reworking. The basic navigation using the mouse is improved and there are a number of shortcuts for navigation, but the real test is using actual desktop applications not developed by Microsoft.

Don't expect to be happy with all of your current applications, if you use them on a touch device. As a programmer, my personal view is that desktop applications need to be rewritten or modified for the touch environment. Metro is better suited to touch, so even though you can use a mouse, one may enjoy metro applications more on a tablet than on a desktop computer.

Metro and Desktop Apps are so Very Different

This much I can say, there are specific advantages to both Metro and the desktop. Metro's design for touch really requires that an app's user interface have a lot more empty space and larger elements suited to the size of one's finger. Because of this, Metro applications tend to use space on the screen poorly. You end up having to touch the back arrow button on many applications to move from screen to screen. Any user interface that requires a lot more detail (e.g., more UI elements per square inch) really still should be designed for the desktop, rather than Metro and also should be designed for the mouse.

Likely, most people who are using the Consumer Preview are just playing with it, but once a person gets down to business with it, one quickly finds out what works well in Metro and what works better on the desktop. If Windows 8 only had Metro it would be useless for a lot of business and power users. It is important to recognize when to use Metro and when to use the desktop.

Too Much Emphasis on Metro

I understand why Metro is being pushed to the forefront, but my own personal experience indicates that there is too much emphasis on it. For example, when I use Windows Explorer to display some files and then double click on an MP3 file, instead of the Windows Media Player (desktop version), I get a Metro version music player. It seems more like an advertisement for a music store with all sorts of covers to music albums in the background and only a few controls appear. Compared to the WMP, the experience displeases.

I have video driver problems, too, so when I installed some Metro games, they work with default Windows 8 driver installed, but I get a much smaller screen size (1024 x 786, when my monitor is 1680 x 1050) . More troubling is terribly slow response -- to the point of being useless.

I updated the driver so as to get the full-screen resolution, better hardware support and especially OpenGL support for my desktop applications, but, now, some Metro games simply won't work at all. I know this is a driver issue, because my desktop has a very common Intel onboard graphic chip (GMA 950) found in many mass-market computers, so a decent Windows 8 driver would have been appreciated with the Consumer Preview. I had the same problem with my ExoPC tablet, which definitely should have been supported, since I purchased it recently from, of all places, the Microsoft Store. Yet, there is no decent Windows 8 video driver for it either.

I have not found Metro applications to be "fast and fluid", but instead they tend to be slow and bloated. Now a few are well-designed, and I really like them, such as the "Cut the Rope" game. It is one fun game and works well for both touch and the mouse. I had no problem using the game on both my desktop computer and my tablet. As far as some of the other Metro apps, I spent too much time jumping from screen to screen (one can get tired of the back arrow button), so the intended fast-and-fluid feeling is lost.

Metro tried to emulate the Windows Phone 7.5 UI way too much and because of this it loses the feel of being on a real computer. It just cannot compare to the richness available to a desktop application.

Time to Rethink the "Windows Reimagined" Concept

Personally, I think the Windows Reimagined concept goes a little too far. Now Windows 8 and Metro are not a lost cause by any means and they do offer some exciting new features. What Windows 8 needs is to go back to its roots and to become Windows again.

This does not mean getting rid of Metro. It means blending Metro and the desktop metaphors better. I really think Microsoft could have a real success on their hands with Windows 8, if they just simply rethink why people use Windows in the first place and what they do with it.

Likely many users have very good suggestions on how this could be done, but Microsoft needs to be willing to listen carefully to the long-time user base. There are some extremes touted by some, such as dropping Metro entirely or dropping the Desktop entirely.

What Microsoft may not realize is that they possibly have a real "gem" in their hands with Windows 8, but only if they do it right, avoiding either of these extremes. Rather than "Windows reimagined" maybe it would be good to reimage Metro to see how it can better blend with the desktop.

Windows 8 can become Windows again!

Publié: mars 9, 2012, 12:50am CET par Chris Boss

In my last article, "Microsoft, Metro takes our choice away!", I discussed the need for Windows 8 to better use the long heritage of the operating system, rather than try to be something so totally new.

As a Windows software developer I want to see Windows 8 do well on the market, but I realize that end users will dictate that outcome. There is a reason Windows, despite its ups and downs, has become the most popular computer operating system on the planet. It has provided a huge number of people so many choices that it allows them to accomplish many important things. This follow-up article is just one programmer's ideas about how to leverage this power and heritage to make Windows 8 even better.

1. Treat x86 different than ARM. I understand the reasons behind the sandboxed environment of Metro, which is one reason the new user interface has been pushed to the forefront and the desktop to the background. But as a Windows software developer, I recommend something else. Rather than offer a split personality -- desktop and Metro motifs in the same operating system -- it would be better to treat Windows 8 on ARM and Windows 8 (on x86) differently.

Let WOA, with Metro, be the look-forward OS, oriented to consumer-oriented devices and let x86 Windows be for the computer world. There is a big difference between the two. Many consumers right now aren't shopping for PCs; they want mobile devices that can display the content they want most, from the web, email, videos to ebooks. Along with the content they want a few apps, too, often games. WOA is perfect for them, and a primarily Metro environment is ideal.

But there are many people who are looking to buy computers. They want more choices. They want more control. They want to develop content, not just view it. They may be graphic artists, engineers using CAD, writers, scientists or programmers. They may need a full blown PC in their business or trade. They may simply be power users who want the best of both worlds.

The point is, treat x86 Windows as a computer operating system and WOA as a consumer device operating system. Sure they may share some commonality, but the computer version needs to be more open and allow more choices, respecting that the users recognize and are willing to accept the risks involved.

The difference between consumer devices and computers is like the difference between cars and trucks. Trucks are designed for more power, albeit with less gas mileage, to hold more stuff and more weight, albiet with less comfort and often are much larger and less easy to manuver. Yet, those who require a truck would not appreciate having a car forced on them simply because someone says it would get better gas mileage or would be more comfortable.

2. Appreciate the importance of familiarity. One of the biggest complaints about Windows 8 so far has been Metro and how it has taken over the desktop and that the familiar Start Button no longer exists. Actually it is not the Start Button that users miss, but the simple Start menus it displays. I understand the desire to put Metro in the forefront, so here is a nice compromise.

Create a Metro app that acts like the old Start Menu. That would be easy. It can have that Metro look, while displaying the same information we used to have on the Start Menu. This app tile could be a graphic that is just like the old Windows 7 Start Button itself. New users to Windows 8 would see all the tiles and the first tile would be a Start Button app that would look familiar.

3. Create more Metro apps/tiles to bring desktop features closer. We have the Metro app that displays the desktop, so why not add some more Metro tiles to bring other aspects of the familiar desktop closer. There could be a "My Computer" tile, a desktop Control panel tile (not a Metro control panel), a desktop Internet Explorer tile. The point is to create default tiles that bring the desktop closer to the Metro environment.

4. Leverage the Windows heritage, don't disrespect it. There is a lesson that can be learned from the past, from Visual Basic. Whether we appreciate it or not, Visual Basic made programming for Windows fun. It created a new generation of software developers who filled all sorts of needs that many had. It does not matter how many C++ programmers there were who considered Visual Basic a toy or a non-professional programming language. The truth of the matter is that many a Visual Basic programmer made a good living using it and they developed some very professional software that filled the needs of many that the C++ world could not keep up with.

But look at what happened when that long heritage was not appreciated and VB.NET tried to replace it. A huge sector of software developers were nearly eliminated overnight and those who gravitated to VB.NET, many of them actually moved on to C# instead.

What many people may not appreciate about Windows is that despite whatever is the current fad in programming in the mainstream tech world, there is often just as many or even more choices for developing software for Windows that are not part of the mainstream. Don't believe me?

BASIC is supposed to be a dead language and obsolete today according to the mainstream tech world, but yet there are so many independent developers of Basic compilers today, that a lot of software is being developed by them that solve many important needs in the Windows world. Some of these compilers can produce better and faster applications than with mainstream languages. Some are so easy to use, even a novice can produce quality software.

Check out this list of Basic compilers.

Now this is just the BASIC language. There are so many other choices that may not be mainstream, but yet they are popular. Consider languages like Python and Ruby on Rails. If you doubt this, check out this website to see how many popular computer languages there are today, which are not mainstream, but yet are being used by many software developers. And this is just an example of a lot of the free stuff.

The point is that Windows has been around so long and has such a rich development heritage, that the choices for writing software for Windows is just staggering.

5. Choice works for open source and has long worked for Windows. Don't take it away. The open-source world has produced so many choices for developing software for Windows, one would be ill-advised to disregard them. For example despite the popularity of DirectX, OpenGL is a popular standard for 3D graphics simply because of the huge support in the open-source world. I use OpenGL because it provides some things that DirectX does not.

It is not a matter of one programming language being better than another, but it is a matter of allowing Windows developers as many choices as possible. Windows is used by so many people worldwide that there is no way one or two major companies could provide all the software needs of all these people. You need all the many different ways of programming that currently exist.

Even the so called simple development tools like BASIC, 4GL languages and scripting languages serve a purpose. Do you realize that there are some companies today that are still using DOS applications, simply because they do the job better than any other application currently available? Windows for years supported the ability to run DOS applications and with today's virtual technologies, one could still run DOS in a VM to run such apps. You don't see anything like that in the Android or iOS worlds.

Over the weekend, Apple' App Store reached 25 billion downloads, which appears staggering. But when you consider the amount of software being created for Windows over the last few decades, I would venture to say that it dwarfs the number of iOS apps available. And that is not the number of downloads of apps for Windows I am refering to. It is the actual number of unique apps for Windows developed over many years. The reason for the huge number of Windows apps is because of its long rich heritage and because there are so many different choices for developing software. The open source world has simply expanded this even more.

6. Make backward compatibility a priority again. Until Windows 8, backward compatibility was one of Microsoft's major development priorities. Why is backward compatibility for software so important? Because it takes time to develop software, it costs money to do it. To "reinvent the wheel" every time there's new software wastes valuable money and resources. Windows' past history of backward compatibility has actually been its biggest success. Do not underestimate the importance of this. As businesses see the need to save money and use resources wisely, backward compatibility can make or break a them.

When it comes to Windows backward compatibility this eight year-old article by Joel Spolsky is one of the best reads I have found on the subject.

If Microsoft wants its newest OS to succeed, Windows 8 should stay Windows, meaning it can become Windows again by embracing the rich heritage it has. This does not mean Microsoft should drop Metro. Metro needs to simply be just another new facit of Windows, rather than to replace it. I do see the need to bring Windows forward into the world of touch and tablets -- that's WOA's role -- but not at the expense of the long rich history that is Windows.

Businesses, choose your Metro development options wisely

Publié: février 29, 2012, 7:47pm CET par Chris Boss

Okay, everything is going Metro with Windows 8, right? The new, tile-like user interface is the hottest thing to ever come to Windows, right? Not so fast. Businesses need to be cautious when choosing which new applications should be designed for Metro and what apps should be designed for the desktop. Why?

In IT, change often isn't a good thing, and Metro brings lots of it.

Which Computers Will Run Your software?

Metro may be pretty and over time improve usability, but the UI will only exist on Windows 8 computers. This means trouble running Metro apps on PCs running older Windows versions. If your business has even dozens, hundreds or thousands of existing computers, designing an application for Metro will create a compatibility nightmare.

Effectively, Metro eliminates a huge computer base for your new software. In the past a new, version of Windows didn't have this drastic an effect. Microsoft had your back, by assuring full backward compatibility. You could easily design software that would run on at least two or three different versions of Windows, including the latest one. You could even design software that ran on multiple versions of Windows, but when run on the latest version would impliment new features only available to that operating system.

Microsoft gave you best of both worlds. But not so with Metro. You can't make a non-Windows 8 computer run a Metro application in any shape or form. So if you want your applications to be able to run on as many different computers as possible in your business, new and old, then design them for the desktop. And, yes, Windows 8 provides a desktop motif. It's not all-Metro or nothing.

Why Not Just Upgrade Everything?

While Microsoft currently says that any computer running Windows 7 will be able to run Windows 8, common sense dictates that upgrading en masse an entire business would be problematic at best. Things rarely work as easily as one hopes in things like this. There are too many considerations before upgrading that many computers:

First is cost. Not only is there the cost for the operating system software, but the time and money spent actually doing the upgrade alone should cause one to pause and think about it. Then there is downtime and training costs, and Metro is sure to generate many.
What happens when things go wrong? (Remember Murphy's Law.) Surely some computers will have unexpected issues when upgrading.
Not all computers in a business are running Windows 7 currently. There may be many Windows 2000, XP and Vista computers and upgrading them would will be even more problematic, requiring upgrades to the hardware.
Often the most sensible Windows upgrade is none at all -- wait and get the software on a new PC.

So unless you plan on buying all new computers for your business, then seriously consider whether Metro is the best choice for certain applications your business may develop.

So Should You Totally Skip Developing Metro applications?

No!

The point is to choose wisely when Metro software development may be worth it. For example, Windows 8 should bring more Windows tablet PCs to market, and Metro may be the perfect choice for your business to develop new tablet-based software.

Since you likely will purchase new tablet PCs rather than using existing ones, it makes sense to develop Metro applications. Also since a tablet PC usually is quite expensive and many used in business today run Windows 7 too, it actually would be cost-effective to spend the money to upgrade them to Windows 8 (if they have the necessary requirements for the upgrade).

Compared to buying a new tablet PC, upgrading usually is cost-effective. So Metro application development might make a lot of sense in this case. Windows 8 is a lot nicer for a tablet than Windows 7, so it would likely be worth upgrading and developing Metro applications for tablet PCs in a business. Assuming that you plan to deploy them or upgrade existing ones.

Is Your Software Going To Be Used By Customers?

Another consideration: Whether your business will develop software for use by your customers. Some companies provide free downloads of software to customers, which allow them to better access services they may provide. Maybe you sell the software to your customers.

So should you design for Metro?

Developing software for Metro again creates a problem in that it may take some time before your customer base reaches a point where the majority of them have a Windows 8 computer. If you design only for Metro then you could lose out on a significant number of customers. The desktop will have a larger possible user base for a number of years.

Consider Windows 7. More people use Windows XP, which is nearly 11 years old. You can ill afford to not have a majority of your customers not be able to use your software because it is a Metro application. While designing your software both in a Metro format and a desktop format would give the best of both worlds, also remember that development costs could be twice as much. So count the costs carefully.

Metro Is Still Important Though!

Despite the considerations noted above, many businesses should seriously start working on Metro development as soon as possible. Why? At some point in the future, Metro will become more mainstream and likely it will make sense to develop Metro-only applications. Rather than wait until that happens, it makes sense to get started now in building an in-house Metro development team, because:

Estimating when your customers ask for Metro versions of your applications will be tricky.
At some point your employees will find situations where they would prefer a Metro application over a desktop application.
Windows Tablet PCs may become much more common soon and Metro applications for them would make a lot of sense as well. It will take time for your programmers to get up to speed with Metro development.
It also takes time to weed out any issues this new platform may bring with it and the more experience you have in building Metro applications, the more likely your development team will be able to deal with any such issues.

Metro is so very new, that it will take time to fully evaluate the pros and cons to Metro development. This is a really big change for Windows and it should be taken slowly and very seriously, but don't wait to get started learning about Metro software development.

All you need is a good idea and a little Kickstarter

Publié: février 7, 2012, 7:31pm CET par Chris Boss

As a software developer I can appreciate how important it is to have good ideas. The challenge is making them reality. Also it is not enough just to be taught a skill, one needs to be able to put it to work doing something valuable to others. Some of the best ideas come from people who aren't just trying to make a buck, but who love what they are doing and see the real value in it.

Sadly many a good idea never makes it beyond the drawing board. But some people don't give up so easily and with a little Kickstarter amazing things can happen. Recently, I discovered two unique examples of very good ideas turned into reality by taking advantage of this unique website.

3D Printing with PrintrBot

This one really excited me, as I am really interested in 3D printing. While there have been some great efforts to make 3D printing affordable, such as MakerBot and the open source RepRap, it still costs quite a bit to get started with 3D printing. Then along came someone with the idea for PrintrBot, with the goal to bring the price down so low that it truly can become a reality for many people. The design for PrintrBot is also quite unique with some amazing features compared to others. Combined with the help of the website Kickstarer, this one just may become a reality.

KickStarter's concept is simple: Crowdsourced funding. Inventors post their ideas on the site and seek funding for their projects. The people behind PrintrBot had a goal of raising $25,000 via Kickstarter. Their idea is so good though that they not only got funded, but they raised over $830,000 -- and they are on their way to turning a great idea into a reality.

A Boy with a Great Idea!

A young man named James Hardman (with the help of his father) also has a very interesting idea. The project at Kickstarter is not fully funded yet, but I'm impressed by his idea and desire to make it a reality. Hardman's plan is to build very large tablet PCs (17 inch for example). What caught my attention, and it's something not even the big computer companies have done: Make such tablets easily upgradable -- just like we can do with our desktop computers.

One advantage desktop computers have over both tablets and laptops is that they are designed so you can easily upgrade them from the CPU to the graphics card. When was the last time you saw a tablet computer or a laptop where you could easily swap out the CPU to a better one or change its graphics chip ?

The amazing thing is how young James is and yet he is working hard to make his idea a reality and Kickstarter just might make it possible.

Interview with James Hardman

I contacted Hardman, and he graciously answered questions about the project.

How did you learn about how to build a Tablet PC?

I knew how to build a desktop, and I knew all the components of an iPad. I took my knowledge and came up with a way to integrate a touchscreen on an old laptop I had.

Why did you chose 17 inches for the size?

Mostly because I liked big screens on mobile devices, and I knew other people who did too. Also partially because I had a 17-Inch laptop I wanted to repurpose.

Do you really think it is possible to build a Tablet PC that can have upgradeable parts?

Definitely. The only reason why most laptops are not upgradeable is because all the parts (i.e. the CPU) are soldered into their sockets. With the tablet I am integrating desktop upgradeability, meaning all parts can be replaced, as long as the part is compatible with the motherboard.

Are you interested in making it compatible with Windows 8?

Yes, but it would not be our preferred operating system. We are currently thinking of developing an operating system called ULOS, that would be able to run Windows, Mac, and Linux programs at the same time.

Where do you get the parts for your prototype?

The main parts included an old Dell e1700 laptop from my home, and the touchscreen from a wholesaler in China. In addition, there were many more minor parts, such as the USB touchscreen controller, and the cables attaching everything (i.e. the touchscreen and display) to the motherboard.

What is the biggest challenge for you with this project?

The biggest challenge thus far, has been getting my project out to people. This project has been struggling with the lack of knowledge that this project even exists.

What is your motivation for doing this project?

My main motivation for this project was to be the first to develop a product of its class.

Do you have any other people who will help you with this project if you get funded?

I have a motherboard manufacturer that is ready to produce the motherboards for my tablet, and all they need is money. I also have the support of my family members.

What do you think of the Kickstarter concept and why did you chose to use it to fund your project ?

I believe that crowdfunding sites are the future of start-up funding. In the next 20 years, I believe most start-ups will be funded through crowdfunding sites. I chose Kickstarter in particular because of it's simplicity and how well-known it is.

Good Ideas are Worth Working For !

It's remarkable to see tools like Kickstarter make something like start-up funding social. Some product we may someday use in the mass market may have started from crowdsourced funding. I can really envision myself possibly getting a PrintrBot in the future if the price is right. Also like James Hardman, I surely look forward to the time when an investment in a tablet PC also allows me the opportunity to extend my investment by easily upgrading it with off-the-shelf parts, rather than just throw it away for the latest more powerful one.

So let the good ideas keep coming!

I've redone the Windows 8 architecture slide (so you won't have to)

Publié: janvier 25, 2012, 6:23pm CET par Chris Boss

Microsoft's Windows 8 architecture slide

Mary-Jo Foley's article about a slide shown at last year's Microsoft BUILD conference raises uncertainties that bug me as a developer. It's the graphic that attempts to lay out the architecture of Windows 8, particularly in relation to Metro versus the Desktop. As a long-time Windows API programmer, I regard this graphic as the most important yet about Windows 8. Something doesn't seem right!

Somehow all the different interpretations of this chart don't make sense to me. Something's not right, especially the position the Win32 API is given. So I decided to do some digging to see if I could uncover what is really going on under the hood.

So Where are the Metro Applications Anyway?

My first problem was finding where the Metro applications were located so I could inspect them and their layout, as well as dependencies. It turns out they are in the folder \Program Files\Applications but one won't notice this because the folder is both hidden and requires administration rights to access. Once I found the folder, the rest was easy. Each Metro app has its own folder. A Metro app folder appears to always contain four files at minimum:

AppxBlockMap.xml
AppxManifest.xml
AppxSignature.p7x
resources.pri

AppxManifest tells Windows what the startup file is, which is either an HTML file or an EXE.

Let's Check Some Metro EXEs for Dependencies.

Most of the Metro apps were HTML, but a few were EXE files. I decided to use the Depends utility that comes with early versions of the Windows SDK to check these EXEs for their operating system dependencies. There are two types of EXEs. One appears to be .NET style applications that use the CLR. The other appears to be C++ applications that use the WinRT. The .NET apps only showed one primary dependency, mscoree.dll, which is the CLR runtime execution library; mscoree.dll will then have its own dependencies in the operating system. The C++ style apps have a number of dependencies. The copper application has the following dependencies:

mfplat.dll
mfreadwrite.dll
D3D11.dll
D2D1.dll
DWrite.dll
ole32.dll
msvcp110.dll
msvcr110.dll
vccorlib110.dll
kernal32.dll

Some of these are C++ runtimes, some DirectX DLLs and others are Win32 API dlls.

Added to this are two dependencies, for which I could not find the files anywhere on the hard drive. I hoped to find them since it would give me a glimpse into the WinRT. They must exist somewhere, but Windows does not make this easy to find. They are named:

api-ms-win-core.winrt-string-L1-1-0.dll
api-ms-win-core.winrt-L1-1-0.dll

They are obviously WinRT files. Also the naming of the files are similiar to how much of the kernel services are named. There are plenty of OS dlls that start with something like "api-ms-win" or "api-ms-win-core" and so on. A good bit of what used to be the Win32 API has been moved to these kernel files (not the same as kernel32.dll) since Windows Vista. The Depends utility had a very hard time loading an EXE and scanning for dependencies since the Windows kernel is made up of many, many files now.

Chris Boss's revised Windows 8 architecture slide

The Windows 8 chart needs to be redone!

From this inspection of Metro applications and their dependencies, the Windows 8 chart seems even more wrong to me. Maybe I am missing something. Maybe I am making some wrong assumptions. I am not saying my interpretation of this chart is any better (or worse) than others. But I figured I would take a try at it and see if I could rearrange it to something that makes more sense to me and which fits the model I have built in my mind from this little excursion into Metro apps and their dependencies.

So I present my version of the chart. Rather than be critical of it, why not post some comments of how it could be improved to be more accurate. My chart is only a guess (only Microsoft knows for sure), but it is a calculated guess based on what I currently know of Windows 8.

Compact software development is IN, bloat is OUT!

Publié: janvier 23, 2012, 7:19pm CET par Chris Boss

For years I have discussed with others about how software development should get back to basics, using native code (rather than scripting languages) by using compilers optimized for creating fast and compact applications.

A recent TIOBE index reemphasizes this point.

The most telling part of the index is the graph of long term trends. What I thought was interesting with the TIOBE index long term graph is this:

Java is strong, but its long-term trend appears to be an overall decline
C# is growing, but is far behind Java and C (C is still twice as popular as C#)
C++ appears to be on an overall decline amazingly
C appears to be relatively consistent and strong and could soon pass Java

Native Coding is making a Comeback!

C is the cornerstone of native coding, particularly when it comes to Windows. It is interesting that it continues to show such a strong standing among languages. Even Microsoft, I have read, has shown an interest in getting back to native coding (albiet using C++ most likely). Why the interest in native coding after years of pushing .NET and other frameworks? It can be summed up in two words:

Speed and Size!

Yes, speed and size of applications. Maybe because of all the interest in tablet PC's and smartphones, whch really need smaller and faster applications because of their form factors (limited hardware). Maybe many are just getting tired of bloated software (takes too much space and memory and runs too slow). Whatever the reasons, it can be summed up with "compact and fast are IN" and "bloat and slow are OUT".

C is not the Only Game in Town!

So should we all start programming in C? Not necessarily. While C may be the current leader in native coding, this does not mean it is the only game in town that has a monopoly on creating fast and compact applications for Windows. Recently, I had the chance to interview Bob Zale, president and founder of Powerbasic about his BASIC language compilers. In a story for another tech site, I described Powerbasics compiler as the "software industries best kept secret". Why? Because Powerbasic is the great, great, grandchild of TurboBasic. Yes, TurboBasic still lives, but it is now a Windows compiler.

What most people don't know: Powerbasic is often used behind the scenes by many major companies and would you like to know why? Because is it the epitome of native coding for Windows. One gets the benefits of one of the best known languages, BASIC, while also being able to produce extremely compact and fast applications which rival those created with, guess what, yes C!

How do I know this? Because I have been using PowerBasic for nearly a decade now, and I can tell you that it can produce amazingly fast and compact applications.

The TIOBE index shows that maybe we should reconsider the software development tools that we use. If compact and fast is now IN, then shouldn't we use programming languages that produce this kind of software? So if you are familiar with C of any sort, then maybe C (or C++) are worth reexamining. If you like BASIC, then maybe PowerBasic is worth a look.

Likely there are some other programming languages that have the power of C, which can produce compact and fast applications. Are you using one of them? If so, why not post a comment and tell us what your favorite native coding language (capable of producing compact and fast) is.

Photo Credit: olly/Shutterstock

What is this mysterious site doing scanning mine?

Publié: janvier 20, 2012, 5:10pm CET par Chris Boss

For you Sherlock Holmes types out there, how would you like a case to crack?

As a software developer I have my own website, and l regularly track my web traffic. I check my web site stats daily. I do analysis of that data to glean everything I possibly can about those who visit my site. So to my surprise, one day recently while checking my web stats I was shocked to see the day's traffic shoot through the roof!

Either a lot of people were all of a sudden interested in my website or something was afoot (as Sherlock would say). The latter it was, pointing to one particular source that has me asking: Who is elusive swebot.net? I had to block the IP address associated with swebot.net, which was scanning my website like something out of a science fiction novel, apparently looking for all life signs. It scanned an online forum (an old tech support forum I left simply as an archive) of mine on the site and it was actually doing searches in the forum sending CGI requests for posts of any user names it found. As Sherlock would likely say, "something is definitely afoot".

When you go to this website, it tells you that it is a: "Search Web Engine" and "experimental search bot".

The swebot.net domain was registered on December 24, 2011 -- not even a month ago.

That's enough to make anyone nervous!

So for you Sherlock Holmes types out there, what can you dig up about this elusive website?

Photo Credit: rayuken/Shutterstock

Prepare your Windows 7 desktop PC for Windows 8 now!

Publié: janvier 19, 2012, 8:30pm CET par Chris Boss

The new Metro user interface will make Windows 8 a totally different experience for XP, Vista and 7 users, but it will especially challenge those of us who use a desktop PC. Why? Because we are accustomed to mouse input and Windows 8 emphasizes touch. Metro is much better suited to touch than the mouse.

So how can desktop users today, prepare themselves for when they later upgrade to Windows 8? I'll tell you.

If You Are Running Windows 7, Likely Your Computer Will Run Windows 8

From everything we have heard so far, it appears that if your computer currently has Windows 7, then it should be able to run Windows 8 without a problem. Having worked with the Windows 8 Preview Build a bit, this much I can tell you: One key component of your system will be critical and that is your hard drive.

When I installed Windows 8 to one of my desktops that was running Windows Vista, I didn't want to disturb my current operating system, so I decided to simply disconnect my hard-drive (a SATA drive) and installed another drive into a removable drive bay for Windows 8. I only had a spare IDE drive so I used it, which would be slower than the original SATA drive in my computer. The rest of the system was fine, since I had recently upgraded the CPU to a decent Pentium D dual core and the RAM to 2 gig (most Windows 7 PC's should have plenty of memory and a decent CPU for Windows 8).

My setup for Windows 8 was actually quite interesting. Because the hard drive was in a removable bay, I could easily hear when it was running. I didn't have to look at an LED to see if it was being accessed, I could hear it. Second, because I only had an older and slower IDE drive it was more apparent when the drive was being accessed. The drive had to work a little harder than a newer SATA drive would, and this showed.

Windows 8 appears to really work the hard drive. Even when the computer was doing nothing (no apps running) and the Metro screen (menu) was visible the hard-drive runs a great deal, more than I would have expected. While I can't say for sure, it is my impression, so if your computer is older (before Windows 7) and you upgraded to Windows 7, you may want to consider making sure you have a more current and fast hard drive installed before upgrading to Windows 8. If your computer came with Windows 7, likely the hard-drive should be sufficient. The fact that your computer is running Windows 7 (even if you upgraded to it), likely it should have enough memory, a decent CPU and Graphics card/GPU which should be sufficient for Windows 8.

What Your Desktop Is Likely Missing -- Touch!

What else do you need to prepare for later upgrading to Windows 8? This much I can tell you. Touch will be vital to get the full benefit and experience from Windows 8, and you can get a head start on this right now. How?

The prices for multi-touch enabled monitors are getting low enough that you may be able to afford to get one now -- and they work great with Windows 7. As a programmer I can tell you that Windows 7 already supports the key elements of touch that Windows 8 does. The difference is that most software is not currently designed for touch, while the Windows 7 operating system actually is. Most future Windows 8 software likely will be touch ready.

Even though much of the software you are currently using isn't touch-enabled, it is actually beneficial to start getting used to touch now. Why? Because likely with Windows 8 you may still use legacy software with it, so you will be more prepared for the experience later. Additionally, there is actually some software already available now for Windows 7 that is touch-enabled, so you can start getting a real feel for working with touch today.

Once you install a touch-enabled monitor with Windows 7, I recommend going to Microsoft's website and downloading the free Touch Pack for Windows 7. This free touch-enabled kit contains six touch ready applications. The two most interesting and useful of these are Microsoft Surface Globe and Microsoft Surface Collage. My wife really enjoys working with the Collage programming using touch.

What It's Like To Have A Touch-Enabled Monitor With Windows 7.

I recently purchased a very nice 22 inch multitouch monitor for my wife's Windows 7 PC -- she loves it, and so do I. Even with Windows 7, it is enjoyable and useful. I actually found a great deal for a Planar PX2230MW multitouch at Newegg.com for only $249 and free shipping (retails for $399). Newegg doesn't have the monitor anymore for that price, but I just checked Tigerdirect.com and they sell it for $269.

When it comes to a desktop, size really matters for a touch-enabled monitor, especially when working with software that was not designed for touch. The complaints you may hear about using such software on the current generation of Windows tablet PCs (difficult to be accurate when touching small UI elements on the screen) is not as big a problem when you have a good size touch monitor. I wouldn't go less than the 22-inch size I chose, for a desktop computer.

The point: Now is the time to start looking for deals on multitouch-enabled monitors for your Windows 7 desktop. When you later upgrade to Windows 8 likely the experience will be much more enjoyable and productive. Remember, the public beta is expected in February.

Are ultrabooks really the best value?

Publié: janvier 8, 2012, 6:51pm CET par Chris Boss

It's time for the Consumer Electronics Show, where ultrabooks already are making a big splash. A question arises that deserves consideration. Is this the end for netbooks? Will ultrabooks make them obsolete?

I can't answer this and we will have to wait and see, but consider this: Every time a new generation of electronics comes out the new features are exciting, but as usual selling prices tend to be higher. Prices range between $849 and $999. Sure, there are those who have no problem dropping as much as a $1,000 for the latest gadget. But for the average person, selling price matters. Many people choose between features and price and often price will win out in the balance between cost versus features. I am a programmer, yet I have always lived on a tight budget and tend to buy what is more in line with what I can afford rather than the bleeding edge devices. Simply put: I look for what's good enough within my budget.

How Much Does Price Matter?

Unquestionably, netbooks and ultrabooks offer similar benefits, with thinness and light weight being among the most important. Look at that way, these laptops vie for the same buyers. However, rather than view ultrabooks as the replacement for netbooks, it makes sense to consider the large consumer base which considers price before features. The recent scenario with tablets has shown that price matters. The Walmarts of the world cater to price and not always features, and there is a good reason.

The new ultrabooks sell for around $1,000, some a little less, which puts them in a high-end category that many consumers or small business owners could ill afford. Many people consider $500 tablets as too expensive. So who will pay $1,000 for an ultrabook? That's a question I ask you to answer in comments. In researching good deals on mobile Windows PC's during 2011, where price and features had to balance, I found three that when on sale could have been purchased all together for less than what one ultrabook would cost.

So what Could You Buy For The Price Of One Ultrabook?

The first is the Hannspree SN12 Hannsbook. Newegg.com had this amazingly light laptop (actually a large netbook) on sale for only $299 during 2011 and it comes close to some of the specs of some ultrabooks, but for a lot less money. Sure it isn't quite an ultrabook, but for the price who cares? This laptop is only 3.4 lbs in weight, which is quite good. It has a real Pentium dual-core CPU (SU4100), which is better than many mass-market laptops today. The screen size of 11.6 inches is just right, with a good resolution of 1366 x 768. The size is only 11.7 x 8.5 x 1.25 inches. Sure it isn't less than 1-inch thick like an ultrabook, but for $299 one can easily live with the 1.25-inch thickness that is still very good. Newegg.com even threw in a universal docking station worth about $100 for free with this computer.

The second computer is the Acer Aspire One D257 Netbook. The previous Acer Netbooks sold by Walmart only had an Atom N455 CPU in them, which didn't excite me much. But one day I walked into Walmart and saw the new version (D257), which comes with a nice dual core Atom N570 processor -- and it is a very decent little CPU. Walmart even had this netbook on sale for as low as $228 during 2011. While the battery this netbook packs is not great (you can buy one with a better battery for $268), it is still a nice little netbook for the price and its light weight -- less than 3 lbs. It measures less than 1-inch thick, too! Screen-size is smaller than ultrabooks, at 10.1 inches.

The last computer is a Tablet PC, the ExoPC. The Microsoft store had this slate on sale for only $399 during 2011. The ExoPC is a nice Windows-based tablet, and it is even capable of running Windows 8 (I installed the Windows 8 Developer Preview build on one). It has a very large screen for a tablet -- 11.6 inches with 1366 x 768 resolution and with capacitive touch. It comes with a 64GB SDD and 2GB of RAM. The CPU is minimal (Atom N450), but it works well for a tablet. ExoPC is very light-weight at just over 2 lbs (consider the screen size of 11.6 inches compared to iPad 2's 9.7 inches) and it's a real Windows tablet PC. It is only .55 inches thick too, which beats ultrabooks.

So What Does It All Add Up To?

Most ultrabooks, based on the specs, will outperform these three low-cost mobile computers. Many ultrabooks come with Intel i3 or i5 processors -- some i7, even. I would ask: Are these others good enough, for considerably less money? My answer would be yes. I encourage you to read my ExoPC review for a sense of how much.

So let's look at our little excursion during 2011. We could have gotten a great lightweight laptop that rivals an ultrabook for only $299. Then picked up a nice little (very light and much smaller) netbook for $228. Then to top it off, we could have added a really nice Windows 7 Tablet PC for only $399. All of this for just $926.

Now if I were a small business owner operating on a tight budget, where price versus features was critical, these three computers combined for less than $1,000 would be a pretty good deal over buying one ultrabook. Sure, ultrabooks may be the next step in mobile computers, but if 2011 can tell us anything, price still matters. And it's amazing the value netbooks, or even a Tablet PC, delivers.

First-impressions review: ExoPC 'Microsoft Signature Series' tablet

Publié: décembre 20, 2011, 6:15pm CET par Chris Boss

From all the buzz about iPad, or Android tablets, you'd never know that Windows slates are available and that they offer many unique benefits. I recently bought the ExoPC from Microsoft Store. It is a Microsoft Signature Series PC selling for $399 and running Windows 7 Home Edition.

The company says this about Signature Series PC: "Microsoft engineers carefully tune your PC to help it achieve maximum performance, and include software that really makes it fly. Add world-class antivirus security software with no renewal fees along with 90 days of technical support directly from Microsoft. That gives you a PC that's the best it can be, made that way with Microsoft Signature". The computer, or in this case tablet, isn't loaded up with performance-sapping, third-party software.

Out of the Box

I felt good; about ExoPC before opening the box, which is well-made (and looks good, too), giving the impression of a quality product. Inside I found the tablet, external charger and Microsoft Signature booklet. You should connect the tablet to the charger when first starting it up, since the battery may not be fully charged. Mine wasn't.

This is my first tablet PC, so I won't compare it to others. My first impression: it's a bit heavy. ExoPC is definitely not a "one-hand" held style of tablet, but requires two hands to hold it properly. The slate weighs just over 2 pounds. iPad 2, which doesn't have the benefit of a full desktop OS, weighs less: 1.3 pounds. That said, I showed ExoPC to a friend who has been using an Android tablet for awhile, and he commented that it felt light for its size. He actually liked the size of the screen too. At 2.09 lbs it is lighter than a Netbook, but heavier than iPad.

The tablet feels very solid and well built, not flimsy by any means -- it's built to last. There is a good size border around the display (bottom edge in landscape is slightly wider than the other three sides) so there is plenty of room for holding it with your fingers, without covering the display, which measures 11.6 inches. By that measure, ExoPC is more notebook than iPad or Android tablet.

ExoPC specs: 11.6-inch display (1366 x 768 resolution) with fingerprint-resistant coating; 1.66 GHz Intel Atom N450 processor; 2 GB DDR2 memory at 667 MHz; 64 GB SSD; Intel GMA 3150 graphics; 1.3-megapixel webcam; Realtek High Definition Audio with 2 built-in 1.5-watt speakers; mini-HDMI port; two USB 2 ports; microphone input; headphone output; WiFi N; Bluetooth; and Windows 7 Home Premium. Measures 11.6 x 7.7 x 0.55 inches and weighs 2.09 pounds.

The display is very pleasing. The resolution is really about the lowest one would want to use for a Windows tablet (1366 x 768). This is the same resolution that Microsoft used on tablets when demoing Windows 8 at the BUILD conference, so my impression is that it may become the defacto standard for a Windows tablet (unless it is a 4:3 display of course). The viewing angle vertically (in landscape mode) is not as good as I would have hoped (actually a little poor), so you really need to face it straight on. The horizontal viewing angle though (in landscape) is very good, so someone to your side can see quite well. The touchscreen is very responsive and after calibrating it very accurate.

The 16:9 display ratio appears better suited to landscape mode than portrait, but the resolution is very good so portrait mode should be acceptable to those who use tablets for an ereader. I am a Windows software developer, so landscape will most likely be the prefered mode for me. Still, the 11.6-inch display is a delight -- if you plan on doing a lot of work with ExoPC, rather than simply use it for the typical content consumption (viewing content rather than creating it), like many tablet users do. Size of display is one of the reasons I chose this tablet.

What About Documentation?

There are no buttons on the front of the tablet (power button is on the back), but the light sensor at the top-left corner can be used when the tablet requires keyboard input at times when the operating system is not yet running (i.e., boot menu when two operating systems have been installed). If you move your finger over the light sensor it acts like an arrow key and if you hold your finger over it for 3 seconds it acts like an Enter key. I had to go to the manufacturer's website and their online forums to find this out, so I could properly navigate the boot menu after I later installed Windows 8. Hidden usability features like these are delightful when discovered and create good feeling about the tablet.

But my having to go to user forums to find out about hidden features reveals an annoyance: The ExoPC documentation isn't good enough and could be a lot better. The Microsoft Signature booklet is more about setting up Windows (account user name and password, for example) and that sort of thing. There are no references to such things as using the external power supply when first starting up or even how to back up the operating system.

I went to the manufacturer's website to their community forums to find out how to properly backup the operating system, which is done using a utility that is installed in the Windows system folder (startgen.exe). I later found this utility is also listed on the start menu in the ExoPC folder. This utility requires a 4 gig USB flash drive to backup the operating system. You can't backup up to an extermal USB DVD drive with this utility. It will create a complete restore image for the original data found on the tablet. If you want a backup of all your user data later, then you can use the Windows 7 backup utility to do this.

Easy Setup

If you have not used a Windows tablet before, you may initially be confused when the setup initially starts (when first booting up) and requests you type in user account descriptions (to create your first user account). There is no obvious way to type in the text and the Windows 7 touch screen keyboard which can later be accessed via the left side of the screen (touch left side to show it) is not yet available. How you enter text is to simply touch the text field (box) where you want to enter text and a keyboard will automatically display itself. Once I figured this out, the rest was easy.

Even setting up the WiFi for my DSL router was just a matter of selecting it by name and entering the security password. WiFi worked very well. I connected to the Internet and watched some online videos and did it in another room from where the WiFi access point was located.

I would recommend (as with any Windows tablet PC) you connect to the Internet first thing and let Automatic Update do its thing. The ExoPC also comes with Microsoft Security Essentials installed rather than the common McAfee or Norton AntiVirus software, which was nice to see. Security Essentials is more light weight (less bloated) than others so it's well appreciated. Make sure Security Essentials updates AV signature, too.

The tablet felt a little warm and the fan ran quite a bit when I first started it up, which concerned me at first until I went to the ExoPC online forums to get some information about this. It appears WiFi is the big power eater, so when you are online watching videos or downloading a lot, expect the fan to run a bit. ExoPC doesn't get any warmer than any Netbook I have so this appears normal. The fan, even when running full speed, is still very quiet compared to some laptops so it isn't distracting.

Decent Performance

The specifications for this tablet are decent for a Windows tablet PC. The Atom CPU (N450) is not a powerhouse compared to some other processors, but I guess ExoPC chose this CPU to compensate for the extra power a larger screen may use. A dual core CPU would have made this tablet exceptional, but the Atom N450 does the job well enough. The 1.66GHz Atom N450 CPU is slightly faster (see: CPU Benchmarks) than the 2.5GHz Celeron CPU in my primary desktop computer (8 year-old Windows XP computer), so considering the form factor of a tablet this is not all that bad. A dual-core CPU would have been nice though.

Despite much of the critism about Windows 7 not being touch friendly, this is the furthest thing from the truth. The real issue is that Windows has long been a desktop operating system and most software was written for the desktop, so, yes, when you use desktop software it can be a challenge. In reality, Windows 7 already supports the key low level features for touch that are also in Windows 8. The difference between Windows 8 and Windows 7 is two fold:

1. Metro UI is very touch oriented and Metro applications are designed specifically for the tablet form factor.

2. The Windows 8 touchscreen keyboard is much better designed than with Windows 7. It works fine on Windows 7, but on Windows 8 it is a much, much better experience.

ExoPC is just the right size for a tablet so that one can use desktop applications that were not specifically written for a touchscreen reasonably well.

ExoPC actually makes the desktop style applications much easier to use for two reasons:

1. Screen size. The 1366 x 768 resolution and 11.6-inch display (DPI settings are set to 125 percent by default, which is just right) really makes up for a lot when it comes to using desktop applications with touch.

2. It also has its own unique ExoPC UI that is well suited to touch and a tablet. The ExoPC UI is an alternate front end menuing system meant to make Windows 7 more touch friendly. The user interface is so good that ExoPC has even licensed it to other companies for their tablets. So until Windows 8 and Metro are commercially available, the ExoPC UI is a good solution. Windows 8 and Metro, though, may make the ExoPC UI obsolete. But that is yet in the future, so for now ExoPC has an advantage over other Windows tablets.

Windows 8 Ready

To fully appreciate the ExoPC as a Windows tablet, it is important to note that the term "legacy applications" (which refers to desktop applications) that you may often see used when some talk about Windows 8 and tablets is not a valid term. Microsoft at times uses the term "desktop applications" when comparing them to Metro applications. This is really the proper terminology from what I can see. The future Windows 8 does something quite unusual. It merges the desktop and the tablet-oriented Metro into one operating system, so you get the best of both worlds. Metro does not replace the desktop (so the term legacy is incorrect) and the desktop is not exclusive from Metro.

Using a Windows tablet, like the ExoPC, is different than using an Android tablet or the iPad. For people who want the ability to do the same thing on a tablet as they do on a Windows desktop or laptop computer, the desktop experience and the ability to run any Windows application is vital. You just can't replace the Windows desktop. It is necessary. One key to a positive experience with a Windows tablet PC is the size of the screen, and the ExoPC calls it right with its large 11.6" display. Anything smaller just won't do well, from my experience, when using Windows and a touch screen.

Actually touch is quite enjoyable with Windows 7, as the screen size gets larger. Of course, you wouldn't want to go much larger than 11.6 inches for a tablet (it's just right), but with a desktop computer the larger the screen the better is touch. Having used a 22-inch touchscreen with a Windows 7 desktop computer, I can attest to how nice it is.

Is ExoPC good enough to run Windows 8, if you plan on upgrading later on? Absolutely. I have already partitioned the hard drive to create a second partition (easy to do with Windows 7, since you can shrink an existing partition to create room for another) and installed the Windows 8 Preview (32 bit) build on it. Let me say that while I like Windows 7 on this tablet, Windows 8 is even better. The large 64GB SSD of the ExoPC also provides plenty of room for installing the Windows 8 Preview alongside Windows 7, so if you are a software developer the ExoPC would be a good choice if you want to get a head start with Windows 8 on a tablet, without spending lots of money.

Photo Credits: Chris Boss

Windows 8: Some unanswered questions

Publié: novembre 2, 2011, 11:42pm CET par Chris Boss

I have been using Windows 8 Developer Preview (32-bit build) for more than a month now, and must say that I am impressed. The first thing I did was test my own software to see how well Windows 8 supports programs that can run on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. So far the tests look good, and I only found one thing that did not work correctly (didn't handle a layered window properly).

I played with some of the supplied Metro applications, and they are quite interesting. At first, Metro totally confused me -- and I am a programmer! For example, you can't terminate a Metro application like you can a desktop application. Coming from the desktop experience, Metro may confuse some users. That said, I need to get some more information about Metro and how it works. Whether you are a programmer or not, I strongly recommend watching the Microsoft Build video about creating (and using) Metro applications, which you can find here.

The video is quite long, but worth your time if interested in how Metro works. Even non-programmers will understand most of the information presented. Now I appreciate more what Metro is all about and I like many of the concepts. I won't go into any details, since the video does a better job than I could.

From everything I have read, ARM-based tablets will only support Metro applications, while x86 (Intel/AMD CPU's)-based tablets will support both Metro and desktop applications. Desktop is how Microsoft describes the current-style applications we are used on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7.

Questions, Questions

The biggest complaint I've seen: The old Start menu will be replaced by a Start screen that would better be called a "Switch" menu. The big question: What will Microsoft do to improve the current Start menu for those who will work as much on the desktop as with Metro (see the insightful "Building Windows 8" blog for more on Start). I don't know about the average Windows user, but I currently have a Start menu (on Windows XP) that has over 125 items on it (yes, that many applications). My desktop has over 100 icons on it as well (many icons are for stuff not on the Start menu). Microsoft really needs to put more thought into how those who use desktop applications can access those applications (and files) that used to be available from the Start menu.

From a programmer's point of view, I am concerned about how well Windows 8 will support many the new features when it comes to desktop applications. Metro has some really exciting new features, like contracts, which I really wish was supported with desktop applications as well.

It is not enough for Windows 8 to support both Metro and Desktop applications, but the two need to be more seamlessly integrated. So far everything points to the Metro world being closely controlled (e.g. only source for applications will be Microsoft app store), while the desktop world will be "open and free" as in the past. I spent some time trying to find the location of the Metro apps on the hard drive; what a chore. I just wanted to examine some of the files of those Metro applications to see how they were written.

Another very important concern about Windows 8 is the effect on programmers who do not use a Microsoft product to write applications. Some very good software is written today using non-Microsoft tools. Desktop applications shouldn't be a problem, but Metro applications is another story. Will we be able to build Metro applications with non-Microsoft tools?

Metro works well and provides some great new features. The Desktop appears to work like it has in the past. The real question: How well will the two can blend? As a developer, I would like to see more overlap between the two. They need to be melded together so they become one operating system, rather than two uniquely different operating systems simply glued together.

So will Microsoft provide some new API's for developers of desktop applications so they can better blend the desktop with Metro? Will they make such features available for those who write native code applications? Also, will programmers be locked into using Microsoft programming tools when they want to create Metro applications?

What About Hardware?

There also is the question about the hardware necessary to run Windows 8 effectively. The Samsung tablet PC provided at BUILD was a bit more powerful than the average Windows 7 tablet PC of today. If the latest experience in the tablet market has shown anything, price will be a big issue for x86-based tablets. Sure ARM-based Windows 8 tablets may be cheaper to build, but for those of us who want the full Windows experience at a price we can afford, Windows 8 needs to be able to run well on very low-end hardware.

So will we see any very low-cost, mass-market, tablet PCs running Windows 8? We have seen some current netbooks sold at Walmart for as low as $228, but will there be Windows 8 tablet PCss in that price bracket?

You know what would be amazing? If when Windows 8 is officially released, I could go down to Walmart and purchase a x86 based tablet PC running the OS for $250.

I am not interested in iPad, even if it sold for only $250. I want a real Windows tablet that can run my desktop software. For $250 such a tablet would sell better than netbooks have, I think.

They only need a 32GB SSD instead of a hard drive. I have Windows 8 (32-bit) installed on a 20GB hard drive right now and there is plenty of room left. Also since there is a lot of emphasis today on using online services for data storage (aka. the cloud), users can store a lot of stuff using that. Programmers can (and should) be able to write efficient software that requires minimal space (and memory) on PCs, so such a tablet would suffice.

Now if Microsoft wants to make a big splash when Windows 8 releases, let's see if they can (with their partners) produce a $250 tablet PC running x86 Windows 8. In my opinion it can be done, but will they?

Windows 7 tablets have a bad rap

Publié: septembre 12, 2011, 7:07pm CEST par Chris Boss

As a software developer I do lots of market research into the current trends of both software and hardware. I read, read, read as much as I can about what is going on in the industry, for starters. There's a whole lot of hype about iPad, and near silence about Windows tablets. But there are plenty of them out there.

Windows 8 will be a boon for tablets, particularly with ARM support and the new Metro UI, but it's still a future release product. Windows 7 is here now. What is its value as a tablet PC operating system? This week, Windows 8 will have big tablet buzz at Microsoft's Windows BUILD conference. Is there really reason to wait? I'd like to offer my impressions of what's here right now, from a developer's viewpoint, about Windows 7 tablets.

Impression #1: Windows Tablets are Seemingly Invisible

When you read the latest online computer tech blogs or magazines you see lots of articles about tablets. There are reviews of tablets, comparisons of them and favorites lists. Generally only Android tablets, like Motorola XOOM or Samsung Galaxy Tab, and iPad 2 are discussed. It's like Windows doesn't exist on tablets.

Part of the problem is target market. Windows tablets are more generally optimized for businesses rather than consumers. But I assure you there are Windows tablets. Just look at some sold by Microsoft at its online store: Acer Iconia Tab W500, Asus Eee Slate, EXOPC Slate, Fujitsu Stylisitic Q550 and Motion Computing CL900 Tablet. Not that you would know from reading the tech news or reviews.

Impression #2: Windows 7 is Backwards Compatible

Whenever you see discussion online about Windows tablets, it usually abounds in comments about what v8 will do for tablets and not about using v7 on them. Chatter will be near-deafening starting tomorrow, when Microsoft formally introduces Windows 8 to developers. While Windows 8 will target tablet PCs better, it's still a long ways from release. Windows 7 is here now, and it offers one fundamental benefit that businesses and developers can depend on: Backwards compatibility.

Microsoft's challenge will be moving Windows forward without abandoning the past investments made by its customers and developers in the operating system. Microsoft isn't rewriting Windows 8 from scratch, but there will be some architectural changes and the new Metro UI. One key question on my mind: how backward compatible will Windows 8 be? Maintaining backwards compatibility is one of the keys to Windows' success story. Given the changes Microsoft is expected to make to Windows 8, more businesses and developers should give more consideration to what Windows 7 already does well on tablets. At the least, the operating system offers assured compatibility with existing applications and hardware.

Impression #3: Intel gets a Bad Rap, Too

Windows is based around Intel CPUs (and x86 competitors like AMD); as mentioned above, Windows 8 will add support for ARM processors. Many technical articles complain about performance problems running Windows 7 on tablet PCs (and netbooks), and authors often blame Intel for the poor performance because of their low-power CPUs (e.g., Atom). Some programmers blame Intel saying the Atom CPU is just too slow to run Windows 7 applications.

That's funny. I have been coding for quite awhile, and I remember writing a complete point of sale and rental software package for a local video store that ran on a Kaypro computer running CPM. There wasn't even a harddrive on the thing and data was stored on 5 1/4 inch floppy disks! Programmers had to learn to optimize their software to get the most out of the hardware and operating system. Funny, I don't see many complaints about coding apps for iPad or smartphones, which also pack low-power processors. It's all a matter of perception.

Today's CPUs -- even the low cost, low-power ones like the Atom -- are amazing little powerhouses. They are extremely fast compared to the CPUs of days gone by. Years ago, one would simply rate a CPU by its speed. A 200-MHz CPU was about twice as fast as a 100-MHz CPU. No longer. Today there are so many factors that effect the speed of a CPU that you get more power from them than you might think.

For example, I recently purchased a netbook that has an Intel SU4100 CPU with a speed of 1.3 GHz I figured it would be slow compared to my current desktop computers. My 8-year old Windows XP computer has a 2.5-GHz CPU and my Vista machine has a 3.6-GHz CPU. It turns out the design of that little 1.3-GHz CPU makes it nearly twice as fast as my desktops. Even the lowly Atom CPUs found in some Windows tablet PCs are about as fast as my older desktop PCs. The problem is not the Intel CPUs but with Windows itself and how applications are written for the operating system (and there, in fairness, is where Windows 8 could have real advantage over Windows 7).

Impression #4: Windows Tablets need Better-Coded Applications

One of the problems inherent to programming is the common mindset of many programmers. Correct me if I am wrong, they tend to always want the leading edge in computer hardware. This means they develop their software, not on the average consumer PC but on computers that, simply put, are "hot rods" compared to the computers you may buy at Walmart. If their software runs slow, they may not optimize it better, but instead they add more memory and faster CPUs to their computers. When that software is released to the public, the system requirements for it go up. Applications drop support for older versions of Windows, and they require more and more RAM.

Remember Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's rant: "developers, developers, developers, developers". Well, maybe we programmers need to hear "tablet developers, tablet developers, tablet developers, tablet developers". We need to find better ways to write software that matches the small footprint of the average tablet PC running Windows 7.

I recently watched an interesting video online where Microsoft employee developers discussed how they personally are going back to native coding and compiling. Rather than C# (C Sharp) which uses .NET, they are using C++ and the native Windows API. This is where things get interesting. Maybe rather than HTML5 or Javascript, programmers need to go back to native code and native APIs. That's where the speed (and small footprint) lies.

I write software that can run on Windows 95 to Windows 7 (how's that for backward compatibility); the software has so small a footprint it can sometimes fit on a floppy disk. I write software using native APIs, too. The resources of the average Windows 7 tablet PC is far richer than many people might think. Changes need to be made in how we write software for Windows 7 today, rather than wait for Windows 8 to solve all our problems in the future. My business motto (I sell programming tools): "there is no need to wait for Windows 8".

Impression #5: Windows 7 is an appealing Tablet OS

Absolutely! I am not saying that Windows 7 has no weaknesses. Rather, we programmers must take responsibility for the user experience on Windows 7 tablets. The operating system is already an amazingly rich environment to run software. Maybe we programmers need to appreciate that environment more. Also rather than "passing the buck" onto hardware manufacturers like Intel and others, we programmers need to start earning our keep and start writing software that better makes the most out of an already robust operating system. So am I waiting in expectation of what is soon to be revealed about Windows 8? I sure am. Am I waiting for Windows 8 before I start writing software optimized for Windows tablets? Absolutely not. In my opinion, there is "no need to wait for Windows 8".

Photo Credit: Adriano Castelli/Shutterstock.com