Little confused about all the buzzwords coming out from this year's Microsoft PDC?
Creamhackered has written some posts on Neowin that explain the terms.
 View: What is WinFX? View: What is WinFS? View: What is Avalon/Aero? View: What is Indigo? |
 |
This week at PDC Microsoft is showing off technologies that will make up the next version of Windows. Don't want to wait to have some of that stuff? Download DesktopX 2 which came out today.
DesktopX 2 comes with a Longhorn-like sidebar that has meters, virtual desktops, and all kinds of other features that also happens to look incredibly sleak.
Want high DPI desktop visuals right now? DesktopX lets you have objects and icons of any size on your desktop today with full dynamic alpha blending and hardware acceleration. If you have an nVidia or ATI card, DesktopX can take full advantage of them to give you real time shadowing of objects.
And best of all, DesktopX 2 is a free download. The full version is available as part of Object Desktop. Or you can purchase it on its own for $19.95. Sales of DesktopX also help pay for WinCustomize.com.
And as if that's not enough, check out the thousands of cool DesktopX objects that are here on WinCustomize:
And if you're a developer, DesktopX already supports Windows scripting host today and soon will support XAML, C# and more making it possible to create objects that will work on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and Longhorn.
Today was the second day of the Professional Developer's Conference (PDC) where Microsoft is showing off some of the technologies that will make up the next version of Windows code-named Longhorn (due out in 3 years).
And there's some really exciting stuff from a developer's point of view. There's so much to digest that it's hard to get handle on exactly what all the goals are. This is my interpretation of events but I think they're pretty on target in this case.
Microsoft is moving to a managed code base. What this means is having code that can be much better controlled from a security point of view. The API that hooks into Avalon and WinFS, and Indigo and such is called WinFX. But presently, it's more like an API layer that talks to managed versions of the Win32 API as well as the Longhorn specific features such as Avalon.
This has me somewhat concerned about how extensible it will be. Let me give you an example -- CursorXP is one of the most popular programs on the Internet. It's a program that lets you change your Windows mouse cursor to support ones with a lot more multimedia features. To work, it has to do some system hooks. Under Longhorn, as presently envisioned, something like CursorXP may not be able to be done without writing some sort of device driver that would tell us where the mouse cursor is and then move the "window" (the CursorXP cursor) to fit on there. Now, companies like Stardock, who have the development resources, can always find a way to get things to work with enough development time. But what about smaller developers? How are the third party shells going to work? How about programs like NeXTStart? Or anything that is designed to extend the base OS via system hooks? A lot of cool things have been invented thanks to system hooks (Instant Messaging anyone -- mouse and keyboard hooks to let people know if you are there or not). Perhaps I am overly worried but managed code is designed to be as secure as possible, a laudable goal but at some point, it can stifle innovation by restricting the ease in which new ideas can be added to the OS base feature set by third parties.
This brings me to Avalon. Now, Avalon looks really cool. It has a ton of really neat visual features. In Longhorn, 2D and 3D are put together. The desktop will be able to have the kind of slickness that was previously only possible in a game. But the most interesting thing, for developers like me anyway, is XAML. What Microsoft is doing here is essentially merging application development and web development into a single discipline. Now, if you're not a Windows user, XAML should scare the heck out of you. I could see the day where HTML is a dead language replaced by XAML. With XAML, the web and Windows applications are the same thing.
Take a look at this screenshot courtesy of XBetas, This is Amazon.com done as an XAML app. Is it a website or is it a program? The distinction is blurred. One thing is for sure, there won't be much doubt about which "browser" HTML will "render faster" on. It'll be on Windows.
But that does bring up an interesting issue. XAML is, in the end, basically a really extensible HTML type language. I.e. a text file. Is this going to be compiled at run time into the application or via a compiler via VS.net and C#? I don't know. Based on the demos I've seen, it would seem that XAML is loaded and compiled via some sort of software processing system because there was a noticeable pause between the window being created and the UI coming up.
But that's really just the tip of the iceberg. Here's the central question my friends: Do you want your applications to behave like websites? As an application developer (which is what PDC targets) it certainly is cool to be able to easily create my own super customized looking application. But is this something end users are going to want? Do they want every application to be as different from one another as every website currently is? There is something to be said about the rigidity of the Windows UI. Even the poorest written programs have UIs that most people can follow because it's hard to deviate too much from the norm. But XAML opens the door to having apps with user interfaces as bad as...well the typical website. It is no coincidence that they had Amazon.com there. After all, their website probably has the best UI of any website on the net. But most of the sites I visit have atrocious user interfaces. And we want to bring that sort of thing into regular applications? Microsoft will provide templates and specifications for how to do a proper UI but Avalon and XAML will make it pretty tempting for every wannabe developer to start putting in flaming logos and gratuitous animations.
Remember in Jurassic Park where they try to break into the computer nerd's computer and his face pop's on and says "Un Uh, you didn't say the magic word!"? I fear that may be the user interface of Christmas future.
Sure, I run the world's most popular Windows customization site. Why would I object to any of that? Because I am in favor of giving power to USERS to customize their own computers and their own software to suit their particular needs. I don't get nearly as excited about every developer imposing their own unique tilt on how applications should be used on the world. I've seen enough developer UI over the years to be thankful that Windows has, up till now, imposed a lot limitations on how much developers can easily change their user interface to be non-standard. In other words, give users the ability to customize how software looks and feels. That would be where I would put the priority.
None of this should be taken as me being down on Longhorn. WinFS, for example, is going to revolutionize the way we work with data. I have a lot more info on WinFS that I can't pass on but the coolness of WinFS, if anything, is being understated at PDC. And the feature set of Avalon and Indigo are absolutely incredible too.
I just don't want to see Microsoft limit extensibility. I think it would limit the options of users to alter Windows to their specific needs. I also think it would open the door for Linux in a big way. And as most people know, I am not a fan of Linux. But by 2006, Linux will probably be a pretty solid competitor to Windows on the desktop for normal people (and no, it's not currently competitive for the mainstream). Add in the ability for corporations and users to add features to extend the OS in ways that make it easier for them to do their jobs and it could make Linux into a contender.
Still, it's early and as I said, I'm still trying to digest the massive amount of data I've seen already. There is no question that for developers and most users that Longhorn is revolutionary. Tomorrow I'll give equal time to managed code to explain some of the benefits of managed code.
I'm not against managed code, I just don't want to see extensibility sacrificed for security. If Windows 98 was a house made of straw and Windows 2000 was a house made of sticks and Windows XP a house made of bricks, then Longhorn is looking like a house built of solid titanium with guards at the door to frisk visitors. As a user, I'd be perfectly willing to sacrifice the guards at the door to be able to easily extend the features of the OS in ways that no one today has imagined yet.
Some useful links:
Cream Hackered's PDC Round Up
Paul's Day 2 Summary
WinSuperSite's PDC day 2 gallery
Today was the second day of the Professional Developer's Conference (PDC) where Microsoft is showing off some of the technologies that will make up the next version of Windows code-named Longhorn (due out in 3 years).
And there's some really exciting stuff from a developer's point of view. There's so much to digest that it's hard to get handle on exactly what all the goals are. This is my interpretation of events but I think they're pretty on target in this case.
Microsoft is moving to a managed code base. What this means is having code that can be much better controlled from a security point of view. The API that hooks into Avalon and WinFS, and Indigo and such is called WinFX. But presently, it's more like an API layer that talks to managed versions of the Win32 API as well as the Longhorn specific features such as Avalon.
This has me somewhat concerned about how extensible it will be. Let me give you an example -- CursorXP is one of the most popular programs on the Internet. It's a program that lets you change your Windows mouse cursor to support ones with a lot more multimedia features. To work, it has to do some system hooks. Under Longhorn, as presently envisioned, something like CursorXP may not be able to be done without writing some sort of device driver that would tell us where the mouse cursor is and then move the "window" (the CursorXP cursor) to fit on there. Now, companies like Stardock, who have the development resources, can always find a way to get things to work with enough development time. But what about smaller developers? How are the third party shells going to work? How about programs like NeXTStart? Or anything that is designed to extend the base OS via system hooks? A lot of cool things have been invented thanks to system hooks (Instant Messaging anyone -- mouse and keyboard hooks to let people know if you are there or not). Perhaps I am overly worried but managed code is designed to be as secure as possible, a laudable goal but at some point, it can stifle innovation by restricting the ease in which new ideas can be added to the OS base feature set by third parties.
This brings me to Avalon. Now, Avalon looks really cool. It has a ton of really neat visual features. In Longhorn, 2D and 3D are put together. The desktop will be able to have the kind of slickness that was previously only possible in a game. But the most interesting thing, for developers like me anyway, is XAML. What Microsoft is doing here is essentially merging application development and web development into a single discipline. Now, if you're not a Windows user, XAML should scare the heck out of you. I could see the day where HTML is a dead language replaced by XAML. With XAML, the web and Windows applications are the same thing.
Take a look at this screenshot courtesy of XBetas, This is Amazon.com done as an XAML app. Is it a website or is it a program? The distinction is blurred. One thing is for sure, there won't be much doubt about which "browser" HTML will "render faster" on. It'll be on Windows.
But that does bring up an interesting issue. XAML is, in the end, basically a really extensible HTML type language. I.e. a text file. Is this going to be compiled at run time into the application or via a compiler via VS.net and C#? I don't know. Based on the demos I've seen, it would seem that XAML is loaded and compiled via some sort of software processing system because there was a noticeable pause between the window being created and the UI coming up.
But that's really just the tip of the iceberg. Here's the central question my friends: Do you want your applications to behave like websites? As an application developer (which is what PDC targets) it certainly is cool to be able to easily create my own super customized looking application. But is this something end users are going to want? Do they want every application to be as different from one another as every website currently is? There is something to be said about the rigidity of the Windows UI. Even the poorest written programs have UIs that most people can follow because it's hard to deviate too much from the norm. But XAML opens the door to having apps with user interfaces as bad as...well the typical website. It is no coincidence that they had Amazon.com there. After all, their website probably has the best UI of any website on the net. But most of the sites I visit have atrocious user interfaces. And we want to bring that sort of thing into regular applications? Microsoft will provide templates and specifications for how to do a proper UI but Avalon and XAML will make it pretty tempting for every wannabe developer to start putting in flaming logos and gratuitous animations.
Remember in Jurassic Park where they try to break into the computer nerd's computer and his face pop's on and says "Un Uh, you didn't say the magic word!"? I fear that may be the user interface of Christmas future.
Sure, I run the world's most popular Windows customization site. Why would I object to any of that? Because I am in favor of giving power to USERS to customize their own computers and their own software to suit their particular needs. I don't get nearly as excited about every developer imposing their own unique tilt on how applications should be used on the world. I've seen enough developer UI over the years to be thankful that Windows has, up till now, imposed a lot limitations on how much developers can easily change their user interface to be non-standard. In other words, give users the ability to customize how software looks and feels. That would be where I would put the priority.
None of this should be taken as me being down on Longhorn. WinFS, for example, is going to revolutionize the way we work with data. I have a lot more info on WinFS that I can't pass on but the coolness of WinFS, if anything, is being understated at PDC. And the feature set of Avalon and Indigo are absolutely incredible too.
I just don't want to see Microsoft limit extensibility. I think it would limit the options of users to alter Windows to their specific needs. I also think it would open the door for Linux in a big way. And as most people know, I am not a fan of Linux. But by 2006, Linux will probably be a pretty solid competitor to Windows on the desktop for normal people (and no, it's not currently competitive for the mainstream). Add in the ability for corporations and users to add features to extend the OS in ways that make it easier for them to do their jobs and it could make Linux into a contender.
Still, it's early and as I said, I'm still trying to digest the massive amount of data I've seen already. There is no question that for developers and most users that Longhorn is revolutionary. Tomorrow I'll give equal time to managed code to explain some of the benefits of managed code.
I'm not against managed code, I just don't want to see extensibility sacrificed for security. If Windows 98 was a house made of straw and Windows 2000 was a house made of sticks and Windows XP a house made of bricks, then Longhorn is looking like a house built of solid titanium with guards at the door to frisk visitors. As a user, I'd be perfectly willing to sacrifice the guards at the door to be able to easily extend the features of the OS in ways that no one today has imagined yet.
Some useful links:
Cream
Hackered's PDC Round Up
Paul's Day 2 Summary
WinSuperSite's PDC day 2 gallery
Stardock’s DesktopX 2 gives users the power to mold Windows
“There are an infinite number of possibilities of how one might interact with their computer,” said Brad Wardell, President & CEO of Stardock Corp. “Microsoft Windows and Apple’s MacOS represent only two ways. DesktopX gives the user the power to create other ways.”
DesktopX is the program that many studios use to create their own futuristic looking computer interfaces seen in movies and TV. For example, the computer screens seen in last year’s “The Recruit” used DesktopX to deliver the thriller’s futuristic CIA computing environment.
DesktopX can be used to build desktops or simply to add individual groups of objects (commonly called “widgets”) to their desktop that can do everything from display current weather conditions, stock prices, or even play simple games.
Key features of DesktopX 2.0 include:
· Replacement of desktop icons with objects that can be of any size, have shadows and react to mouse events.
· Built in visual system monitoring such as resource usage, CPU monitoring, disk space meters, Internet traffic graphs, and visual graphing of all readouts from Microsoft’s built in performance monitoring APIs (i.e. hundreds of local and network resources can be visually monitored without any programming).
· Placement of image files (.BMP, .PNG, .TGA) right onto the desktop. Users could put family photos, create animated wallpapers, or just create their own desktop metaphor.
· Full support for animation and alpha blending. Using a strip of .BMP or .PNG files, users can set the frame rate and play animations right on their desktop.
· Integrated support for both VBScript and Javascript which includes a powerful programmer’s editor. Developers can quickly access information and data from their network or via the Internet and display it on screen using industry standard scripting languages.
· Built in security allows users to lock down their desktops incrementally. DesktopX can be used to build kiosks, publicly accessible terminals or secure home family desktops.
· Direct support for COM/Active X controls. Users can access any ActiveX control on the system and use them to create a corporate or home desktop environment. These controls act just like any other DesktopX object and can have scripts attached to them to control their behavior.
DesktopX comes in 3 flavors: DesktopX free, DesktopX Enhanced, and DesktopX Enterprise. DesktopX standard is $19.95 or can be purchased as part of Stardock’s Object Desktop suite of desktop enhancements which includes WindowBlinds, Keyboard LaunchPad, IconPackager, ControlCenter, and more. DesktopX Enterprise is $9,500 and allows developers to take an object and export it as a stand alone program for distribution. It literally allows development projects that might take months to be done in hours.
Users can download the free version at http://www.desktopx.net. Stardock’s home page is https://www.stardock.com.
Screenshots of DesktopX 2:
· Enhancing existing desktop icons: http://www.desktopx.net/dx-sept03.jpg
· Building a desktop aquarium: http://www.desktopx.net/dx-july03.jpg
· A sampling of DesktopX objects: https://www.stardock.com/products/odnt/odnt-july03.jpg
· A Kid’s Desktop Kiosk: http://skins.wincustomize.com/Frogboy/dx/kids2002.jpg
· Microsoft Bob Reborn: http://skins.wincustomize.com/Frogboy/dx/bobxp.jpg
· The easy of putting images on the desktop: http://www.desktopx.net/dx2/new-8.jpg
More information & video demos at: http://www.desktopx.net/infoguide.asp
DesktopX 2.0
$19.95
DesktopX home page: http://www.desktopx.net
Object Desktop home page: http://www.objectdesktop.com
Stardock Corp. (www.stardock.com)
Phn: (734) 762-0687
Fax: (734) 762-0690
Web: https://www.stardock.com
PDC, for Professional Developer's Conference, is designed for developers (i.e. nerdy people like me). It's where Microsoft is going to show off the cool stuff that it has in store for developers in the coming years. What I'm going to try to do is explain what is happening and how it affects regular users. The things being shown today will one day be things everyone has to live with. Today was the first day.
A lot of what was shown today at PDC is hard to describe since it was so visually oriented.
Managing your stuff...
What Microsoft hopes to do is make Longhorn much easier to manage your "stuff" than before.
In fact, one way to describe Longhorn is the OS that is designed to make dealing with "stuff" easier. To do that, Microsoft has to solve THREE problems:
Problem #1: Our screen resolutions are too small at present to allow for flexible interfaces. There just aren't enough pixels on screen to provide that kind of capability. And worse, everything at present is bitmap oriented. Skinning, as we know it today, involves working with bitmaps. Bitmaps, as any skinner can tell you, don't scale very well. They are designed for a specific resolution.
Problem #2: Our data is not stored in a very effective way. It's still based on concepts from DOS and before.
Problem #3: It is too hard to write software that interconnects with non-local devices. Particularly in a secure way.
Some of the goals of Longhorn...
Microsoft's solution to this comes in the form of Avalon/Aero, WinFS, and Indigo.
Aero is the name of the actual interface. Avalon is the video technology underneath that lets developers create interfaces in VECTOR format. Anyone who's used flash, corel draw, or other vector based drawing packages knows their advantages. Imaging skinning in 2006 -- instead of .PNG files, you'll draw them up as a vector, export them with Adobe After Effects and have a UI that fits in with the OS but also is designed around what your app is trying to do.
Products like Object Desktop will hook into Avalon to allow even more flexibility and customization.
WinFS makes getting to your data much much easier. Imagine your whole file system as an SQL database. WinFS is a layer ontop of NTFS so it's not a file system in its own right.
Indigo is really a set of APIs and services that make it much easier to write software that can access non-local devices. But let me explain a bit more on this because Indigo touches on where Microsoft is going with its entire OS concept that the keynotes didn't really focus too much on:
Traditionally, Windows has been made up of APIs. APIs are really just built in function calls that do set things. Microsoft is taking the concept of API a step further by providing services in the form of APIs. They are blurring the distinction between what an API is and what a service is. This is especially true with Indigo where this "API" . In their demo they showed off how easy it was to write an app that could publish text to a blog.
A lot of what Longhorn is is re-imagining what the OS should be like. They are, in many respects, starting over. For that reason, things are designed to be cleaner. For example, 2D and 3D are merged together into a single API. The sytsem won't distinguish between the two. This means that driver makers won't have to divert resources. They can focus on just making sure their 3D is good. Microsoft got this idea because as they've read through bug reports, they've discovered just how much pain users run into due to poor video drivers. nVidia and ATI respond with how much of a pain it is to write drivers for Windows at present. Longhorn addresses that.
Now, all that cheerleading aside, Microsoft has some challenges ahead of it. How are they going to do all this in 2 years? I definitely don't want to see this rushed. I hate to say this but Windows 2003, based on our experience so far, is not an improvement over Windows 2000 server. And Longhorn is a much bigger jump.
So what does it mean for people who want to customize their PCs? It's too early to tell but it may be a mixed bag. On the one hand, DEVELOPERS will be able to much more easily customize Their own programs. But at PDC, Microsoft's mantra is "managed code". Basically a layer on top of Win32 that developers are expected to use for new applications (i.e. .NET). If Microsoft doesn't provide ways for third parties to extend the OS feature set, it may become increasingly difficult for users to customize their own OS. I don't think I'd like that. It would be the worst of both worlds -- where all my apps are "skinned" to look different but I don't get to decide what "skin" they use.
More to come...
A lot of what was shown today at PDC is hard to describe since it was so visually oriented.
Managing your stuff...
What Microsoft hopes to do is make Longhorn much easier to manage your "stuff" than before.
In fact, one way to describe Longhorn is the OS that is designed to make dealing with "stuff" easier. To do that, Microsoft has to solve THREE problems:
Problem #1: Our screen resolutions are too small at present to allow for flexible interfaces. There just aren't enough pixels on screen to provide that kind of capability. And worse, everything at present is bitmap oriented. Skinning, as we know it today, involves working with bitmaps. Bitmaps, as any skinner can tell you, don't scale very well. They are designed for a specific resolution.
Problem #2: Our data is not stored in a very effective way. It's still based on concepts from DOS and before.Problem #3: It is too hard to write software that interconnects with non-local devices. Particularly in a secure way.
Some of the goals of Longhorn...Microsoft's solution to this comes in the form of Avalon/Aero, WinFS, and Indigo.
Aero is the name of the actual interface. Avalon is the video technology underneath that lets developers create interfaces in VECTOR format. Anyone who's used flash, corel draw, or other vector based drawing packages knows their advantages. Imaging skinning in 2006 -- instead of .PNG files, you'll draw them up as a vector, export them with Adobe After Effects and have a UI that fits in with the OS but also is designed around what your app is trying to do.
Products like Object Desktop will hook into Avalon to allow even more flexibility and customization.
WinFS makes getting to your data much much easier. Imagine your whole file system as an SQL database. WinFS is a layer ontop of NTFS so it's not a file system in its own right.
Indigo is really a set of APIs and services that make it much easier to write software that can access non-local devices. But let me explain a bit more on this because Indigo touches on where Microsoft is going with its entire OS concept that the keynotes didn't really focus too much on:Traditionally, Windows has been made up of APIs. APIs are really just built in function calls that do set things. Microsoft is taking the concept of API a step further by providing services in the form of APIs. They are blurring the distinction between what an API is and what a service is. This is especially true with Indigo where this "API" . In their demo they showed off how easy it was to write an app that could publish text to a blog.
A lot of what Longhorn is is re-imagining what the OS should be like. They are, in many respects, starting over. For that reason, things are designed to be cleaner. For example, 2D and 3D are merged together into a single API. The sytsem won't distinguish between the two. This means that driver makers won't have to divert resources. They can focus on just making sure their 3D is good. Microsoft got this idea because as they've read through bug reports, they've discovered just how much pain users run into due to poor video drivers. nVidia and ATI respond with how much of a pain it is to write drivers for Windows at present. Longhorn addresses that.
Now, all that cheerleading aside, Microsoft has some challenges ahead of it. How are they going to do all this in 2 years? I definitely don't want to see this rushed. I hate to say this but Windows 2003, based on our experience so far, is not an improvement over Windows 2000 server. And Longhorn is a much bigger jump.
So what does it mean for people who want to customize their PCs? It's too early to tell but it may be a mixed bag. On the one hand, DEVELOPERS will be able to much more easily customize Their own programs. But at PDC, Microsoft's mantra is "managed code". Basically a layer on top of Win32 that developers are expected to use for new applications (i.e. .NET). If Microsoft doesn't provide ways for third parties to extend the OS feature set, it may become increasingly difficult for users to customize their own OS. I don't think I'd like that. It would be the worst of both worlds -- where all my apps are "skinned" to look different but I don't get to decide what "skin" they use.
More to come...
Do you hear that flush? It is the sound of the Sci-Fi channel taking the potential fan base support of Battlestar Galactica and sending it down to the nether regions. The more I hear about it, the more convinced I am that it is going to suck. Not suck in a slightly disappointing way but suck in such a massive way that in 10 years we'll look back and put it up there with Star Trek 5 and Battlestar Galactic 1980 as chapters in science fiction that we feel required to forget about.
The trashing of Battlestar Galactica isn't due to dedicated websites panning it (and they do exist) but from watching the trailers Sci-Fi's own website: http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/
It doesn't take long after viewing the trailer to wonder the pertinent question: Are they high?
Let's look at the, ahem, alterations:
Again: Are they high?
Starbuck is a girl. Why? Why would you do that? In the trailer, and remember, trailers are where they are trying to highlight what the show is about in a short amount of time, it has Starbuck (a girl) having an affair with a married man. In fact, about half the trailer involve her necking with people. We'll get to that in a moment.
The Cylons now look like people? Hello? That was the coolest part about Battlestar Galactica -- the robots. With the little red dot waving back and forth and the sound effect. Hey Sci-Fi channel, we saw Terminator already. It's been done. Which leads to...
Previously the Cylons were once a reptilian like race that slowly mechanized themselves. It was a really cool concept. It was still very cool with the Matrix. But the whole deal with Battlestar Galactica changing a basic premise to become a derivative is really sad. Here's the deal folks: We have been adequately warned through plenty of movies, books, and stories about the dangers of building intelligent robots. You know what? If we still manage to build robots without putting in safe guards and they take over, then I say: Good for them! Sign me up to be a slaveling. Because we don't deserve to exist as a species if at the time we can finally build intelligent robots that we haven't heeded the massive warnings to make sure they don't turn on us.
And lastly, the show has a sexier motif. Good god. This is regular TV. The producers at the Sci Fi channel need to check something we call THE INTERNET. At this point, simulated sex on regular TV is about as stimulating as watching paint dry. My inbox gets spicier stuff in it every day whether I want it or not. People who watch sci-fi shows do not want screen time wasted on PG sex scenes. To get a rise out of the typical connected Sci-Fi fan you'd need Starbuck (a girl) to be doing it with a dagget. And I don't mean simulating it either. I mean literally having sex with a dagget. Because in the age of the Internet, PG sex in a sci-fi show is just a waste. Stick with telling us the story. Not boring us watching Starbuck (a girl) kissing some guy.
The whole thing is quite revealing about how screwed up Hollywood is. Do they even look at who they hope will watch their shows? Do they do any sort of calculation at all about making arbitrary (And for the worse) changes to the story line? Those changes won't gain them any new audience members and lose them plenty of the existing fan base.
I haven't checked out some of the fan sites who track this stuff closely. I'm sure they have details that would only horrify me further. Just the stuff on the Sci-Fi channel website is enough to make me want to jump under my desk and crouch into the fetal position trying to make believe it's all a big mistake.
Microsoft's big developer conference began today. Stardock is there to hear about the latest news coming from the conference.
The highlights so far:
More coming...
