In early December, I asked myself whether I'd rather go to Mix or SD West this year. I haven't been to either, but have wanted to go to Mix since its inception. After some thought, I've decided to go to SD West. The main reason for that is because I feel like it'll have better content given my focus. The first year of Mix was all about the web and the second year was a mixed designer+developer event, but still heavily rooted in the web world. I definitely feel at home with that mix, but things seem to be changing again. This year, it sounds like there's going to be even more focus on designer content, so I'll let Mix shake itself out one more year and check out SD West. I look forward to it.

One thing I hate about WPF is the seemingly hidden functionality. In Win Forms, you access objects and properties. In XAML, there seems to be so much there that you miss the good stuff. I feel like this is mainly a tooling issue, but the fact that there’s no real differentiation between attributes and nodes doesn’t help. Here’s an example that those new to WPF might interested in learning…

After adding your first toolbar in WPF, you’ll quickly learn that disabling a button doesn’t do much to inform the user it’s been disabled. You’d expect the button to be grayed out, but it’s not. Initially, I added a style trigger that would make the button image transparent when it was disabled…

<Style TargetType="{x:Type Image}" x:Key="toolbarImageStyle">
    <Style.Triggers>
        <DataTrigger Binding="{Binding RelativeSource={RelativeSource AncestorType={x:Type Button}, AncestorLevel=1}, Path=IsEnabled}" Value="False">
            <Setter Property="Opacity" Value="0.50" />
        </DataTrigger>
    </Style.Triggers>
</Style>

This works, but I don’t know how much I like it. What other option is there? Another image. The thing I hate about a separate image is that it requires additional management of images and additional XAML code to define each button. I like the simplicity of a style to define the look of a disabled button.

Of course, this isn’t all. When a button is disabled, the tooltip is disabled as well. I don’t know if that’s an inheritance issue or not, but there is a simple fix for this one, which is where my “seemingly hidden functionality” comment comes in.

<Button IsEnabled="false" ToolTipService.ShowOnDisabled="True" Content="Disabled Button" ToolTip="Test Test Test" />

Specifying the ToolTipService.ShowOnDisabled property will ensure the tooltip is always displayed. I find it odd that this wasn’t true by default, but whatever. This is all just part of the annoyances that come with these new technologies… that’s why they call it the “bleeding edge.”

Microsoft has a new virtualization technology coming with Windows Server 2008 called Hyper-V, formerly known as Hypervisor. There's been some confusion about what Hyper-V is compared to today's virtualization technologies, Virtual PC and Virtual Server. Before I get to that, tho, I should say something about virtualization. If you're a developer and have never used a virtualization technology, you really should try Virtual PC. I'm not saying Virtual PC is the best tool on the block, but if you're not familiar virtualization, you're doing yourself an injustice. Virtualization is core to the future of server technologies and will be moving to the desktop soon after. Most seem to shy away from virtualization because they fear the complexity -- at least, that's what I imagine the reason is. I know I hesitated, but was ultimately surprised at the simplicity. After playing with Virtual PC, look at Virtual Server if you need to host virtual machines on a server. Well, unless you're using Windows Server 2008, in which case Hyper-V is the route you'll go. So, what's the difference?

I don't pretend to specialize in virtualization, so please only take this as an intro into what's new.

• 64-bit support
• Multi-processor, up to 4 CPU's
• Up to 64 GB of RAM, instead of 3.6 GB
• Scriptable via WMI, instead of COM
• MMC snap-in for management, instead of a web interface
• Guest-only server mode

There are a few other features in Windows Server 2008 that make Hyper-V a better solution, but that's more about the OS than anything. Jason Olson  has stated that the biggest difference is that Hyper-V takes advantage of new chip technologies. Check out Intel VT or AMD-V for more information there. If you want more, here's an excert from one of Jason's emails...

One way to think about these new chip technologies is that they introduce a “-1” ring essentially to the usual four rings in the x86 CPU architecture. With the VPC and Virtual Server offerings, they use a trick called ring compression where the kernel of the VM is placed into Ring 1, instead of the expected Ring 0. This is so that the host can absolutely ensure that VMs are running in their own sandbox and can’t gain access to any resources of the host or other VMs. There is something like 14-17 CPU instructions in the x86 instruction set that can’t be executed directly because of sandbox violation. Hence, the need to place the child VM’s kernel into Ring 1 so that the host can place itself in Ring 0 to intercept those calls to protect them directly or to emulate them.

By introducing a “-1” ring, the hypervisor lives here and controls the access to the various virtual machines. So, with the introduction of a hypervisor living in ring -1, the need for ring compression of child VMs is essentially removed. At least, this is one way to think about.

They hypervisor itself is not a complete OS, per se. The hypervisor is a VERY thin and small, trusted computing base (meaning, there is no “extensible” driver model to plug into with the hypervisor since Hyper-V uses only trusted drivers that have been tested by the virtualization team).

On top of this, this new architecture has introduced the capability of writing a new VMBus communication layer that can help achieve better performance in comparison with VPC and Virtual Server as well by minimizing the overhead of the communication architecture that currently exists with VPC and Virtual Server.

I hope this gives you some decent information. I'm sure there are better resources out there, but I wanted to share what I had for future reference.

Just wanted to share some vulnerability stats from 2007 for Mac and Windows. Mac had 12 times the number of vulnerabilities that Windows Vista had and 5.5 times the number of combined Vista and XP vulnerabilities. At first I was surprised, but then I thought back to rumblings of insecurity and talk about Windows Vista being more secure than Mac OS before that. It's been nice to see the Mac security myth begin to fade away and watch as Microsoft's credibility around security grows. I expect this trend to continue thru the year; especially as more and more users are exposed to Mac's. And, yes, I do see Mac use growing this year. While I'm making predictions, I think I feel pretty comfortable saying Vista won't see the widespread adoption people seem to expect. This is ironic, considering it's truly the best version of the OS to date. Nevertheless, the reason I say that is because I expect to hear more and more talk of Windows "7" this year. I'm guessing that people who've hesitated to upgrade might prefer to see what's next, since there's talk about it being released in 2009. Microsoft is good at learning from its mistakes, so I think we'll see a very big boom when Windows "7" hits the streets.

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
	XP	Vista	XP + Vista	Mac OS X
Total extremely critical	3	1	4	0
Total highly critical	19	12	23	234
Total moderately critical	2	1	3	2
Total less critical	3	1	4	7
Total flaws	34	20	44	243
Average flaws per month	2.83	1.67	3.67	20.25

I saw Simon Guest talk about user experience back in August and one of the things I liked was a tool he had to help decide what user interface platform was the best. Microsoft has 30-something user interface technologies. Sometimes it's hard to know which will be best. More often than not, we use the one the tech lead is the most comfortable with, which is pretty much a crap-shoot. Simon's app, UXIQ, asks 12 questions which you answer on a sliding scale. Ultimately, you're given three recommendations to decide on. I'll definitely keep this tool in my arsenal and suggest you do the same -- both the app and source are available on Simon's blog post.

There have been a number of discussions about Windows Mobile over the past few months that have piqued my interests. The first I want to mention is one on Gizmodo. This one talks about the shortcomings within the platform and the plans to remedy them. The key points are that key features are there, but the experience is what's lacking and that vendors are a major problem, causing unnecessary bloat and slowing the system. This is the same thing we see on the desktop side. For this reason alone, I'd really like to see Microsoft get into the hardware business. Of course, Microsoft isn't a hardware company, so this might be best accomplished by a quality acquisition. WM6 and 6.1 are great upgrades and 7 will be another one with some great UX enhancements, it sounds like, but WM8 is what we really want. WM8 is supposed to be built "from scratch." How much will be built from scratch is another question. As I understand it, the WM platform is built on top of the Windows CE core, so that doesn't seem entirely out of the question.

I was just telling a co-worker how, despite the fact that it hasn't been said, I believe WPF will be the future of Windows development. This seems obvious, but my initial take on WPF was that it was merely another option. I even question a potential attempt to relace the myriad of web development technologies with a XAML development experience. I don't see this being overly successful, but the idea of a single development model intrigues me. If that were to happen today, it seems like XHTML + JavaScript would have more potential. Either way, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Whether or not we see a single language span Windows and web, it looks like we have something new to look forward to. Apparently, Microsoft is looking into yet another UI platform. I seriously question why, but welcome the change. I'd really like to know what WPF is missing that requires a new platform. At this point, tooling is my only real complaint about WPF.

I'v been a mobility enthusiast for a while and it's nice to see others picking it up as well. I feel like the iPhone has a lot to do with that, which I find somewhat humoroous, but that's neither here nor there. Berners-Lee announced a new W3C validator, mobileOK, which checks web pages for standards-compliance and proven practices. This is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm looking forward to initiatives that'll bring the same capability to dev tools. Of course, it's the developers that need to change more than the tools.

As promised three months ago, the source code to the majority of the .NET Framework is now available... and ahead of schedule, I might add. Check out Scott Hanselman's  short list of requirements before digging in. Looks like we'll get a download version as well as having it integrated into Visual Studio 2008's debugger. Bon apetit!

Looks like there's going to be a new certification by the SANS Software Security Institute on the market for those specializing in secure development. Honestly, its intended for -- and probably be obtained by -- all developers, but I don't see it playing out that way. My initial take on it was that it was a great idea, but after remembering the security exam I took for my MCSD, I'm wondering what the difference is going to be. Another thing I should mention is that there will be exams specific to most major platforms (i.e. .NET, Java, C/C++). So, my quandry only applies to the .NET world. This one seems much more structured and thorough than the MS exam, so I will say there's some good potential. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

A while back, I wrote about the difference between user interface and user experience by paraphrasing Simon Guest . On his blog, he shows us the difference between the two in a real world, non-technical example. This is a good resource for anyone who doesn't know the difference, yet.

I saw a note that touched on what sounds like new features in IE8. Admittedly, I don't know exactly what will be included, but it sounds like there will be some improvements to the extensibility model. I've talked about my angst for IE's extension model in the past, so I'm excited about this possibility. The only other thing I've heard about is what I'll call productivity enhancements. Of course, I can't confirm any of these, so it's all heresee until the IE team announces features or a beta.

Microsoft’s search story has been a bad one. Not because the tools are lacking; it’s the marketing that has hurt the product. You’re probably asking, "What search story?" Windows Desktop Search has been out for desktop users for a while, but I have to say the WDS experience on XP sucks. I’m not sure why it changed so much for Vista, but it’s completely different. After experiencing Vista, I look for search everywhere; and, when it’s not there, it’s my first complaint. Vista sold me; search needs to be completely ubiquitous. If your app doesn’t incorporate search, you’re probably not doing your customers justice.

What is Microsoft doing for enterprise search? The answer over the past year has been SharePoint for Search. Now, you’re probably asking why you need SharePoint. This is exactly the problem. You don’t need SharePoint and, honestly, SharePoint doesn’t have anything to do with it, hence the marketing problem. Well, it seems like things are changing. Microsoft is now pushing Search Server (MSS) 2008. Perhaps one of the best things with this announcement is the lighter-weight companion, Search Server 2008 Express. I don’t know all the rules behind when you would want to use one or the other, but this is a great opportunity.

If you’re asking yourself why you’d want MSS when Google has such a strong search technology, I’d have to argue that perceptions aren’t always reality. I’m not saying Google doesn’t have a good product on their hands; I’m just saying MSS is better than you probably think. I live in search and have for the past 9 years. I picked up on Google fairly early and made it part of my life. When I switched to Windows Live, I thought I’d be missing something, but I wasn’t. I haven’t looked back. I’m not saying it’s been a better experience, but it hasn’t been worse. It’s equivalent. With respect to enterprise search, MSS is hands-down a better choice than Google. Why? Security. Google knows search in the public domain; that’s what it’s good at. Grabbing everything and making it discoverable to the masses. Tell me; do you want your company's contract details and competitive info made available to everyone who has access to the intranet or just those with the right need-to-know? Google can’t give you discoverability and security of sensitive material -- it’s all or nothing. Microsoft has been very good at only showing results to those who have access to them. For this reason, I think Microsoft has a stronger enterprise search story. What’s great is that you can now take advantage of this search and the security included in that within your applications.

I was recently asked about programs that can automatically generate sequence diagrams from code. While this seems like a somewhat trivial task, there aren’t any good ones. I figured I’d share what I knew, tho. Maybe someone else knows of something better.

The first option that came to mind was Visio. I have to admit I’m not a fan of Visio. If you’re designing or documenting network topology, I’m sure it’s great. I don’t do that, tho. I work with software, and Visio is horrible for that. If you want to give it a try, tho, you can export your project from Visual Studio. Unfortunately, this won’t create a sequence diagram for you, so it was even more useless for what I was needing.

The next thing that came to mind was a tool built to do exactly this, SequenceViz. This tool analyzes an assembly and creates a sequence diagram. You’d think the search would be over, but not quite. The problem with SequenceViz is that, if you try to map out anything complex, the diagram is useless. Not because it’s all jammed together; the tool doesn’t scale… at all. Beyond this, the tool has some promise. The only other complaint I really have is the install experience. There are some odd dependencies that aren’t included in the installer, so you have to go hunt them down and install them separately. I hate this. Given the power of WPF, I would’ve preferred to use the capabilities built into .NET.

The next thing I thought about was my favorite modeling environment, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect. The problem here is the automatic generation thing. To my knowledge, it doesn’t do that. I could be wrong, tho, so if you’re looking for an all-up modeling environment, I recommend you start here. If the price tag is a problem, take a look at StarUML, which is open source. StarUML hasn’t updated in a few years, tho, which is disappointing.

The last tool I found was a Visual Studio add-in called Flow Chart 4 C#. This tool generates a flow chart – not a UML activity diagram – for a given code block. This isn’t exactly what I was looking for and, honestly, I wasn’t impressed. If I were to need something like this, I’d prefer standard UML over some non-standard flow chart visualization.

One thing I’ve wanted for a long time has been a complete MDA environment for Visual Studio. When the domain specific language (DSL) Tools was released, I thought this would be a great tool to help get there, but it seems I’m the only one interested in it. Microsoft has a vision, but it’s at a much higher level. I’m thinking about an almost completely pure MDA approach where you don’t need much code. Most are probably scoffing at this, but I’m not talking about getting rid of code. I’m talking about code = model and model = code. There should be no difference between the two. I’ve put some thought into it, but don’t really have the time to dedicate to working on it. Maybe after a few more side projects.

I don't know if I'll ever understand Microsoft's official position with respect to UML. Sure, the concept behind domain specific languages (DSLs) is sound, but is it truly necessary? I haven't seen any proof of that. Well, to be more specific, I should say I don't see a need for DSLs when it comes to software analisys and design -- UML has just about everything I've needed and extending it seems to be the logical answer. On the other hand, DSLs are absolutely fantastic for applications that can visualize their data. Honestly, I think more apps should consider DSLs, but when most developers either don't know or don't use software modelling tools, I have to say I'm not surprised. I, for one, have been meaning to dig into Microsoft's DSL Tools, but haven't had the time. One of these days, perhaps. Either way, this is the foundation for Microsoft's MDA approach... well, the development environment, at least. There's an interesting story there, but I'll blog about that later.

I’ve seen some other comments on running Vista on a Mac Book and it seems to be somewhat unanimous: the keyboard sucks. Some of the benefits I have heard include the use of firewire, Parallels, and BootCamp, none of which I’ll ever use. Of course, that’s not it. A few of the hardware niceties include the backlit keyboard, front-loading DVD, and magnetic charger. I don’t know if I like the idea of a front-loading DVD player, but what does it really matter? Not much, in my book. The problems mentioned include the excessive heat; touchy touch pad, which is a problem I already have with laptops; uncomfortable typing due to the front edge of the laptop; two-finger + clicking is a cool idea, but slightly annoying when considering the simplicity of a right-click; and, of course, the keyboard layout. I’ve also heard there have been problems with 64-bit Vista due to lack of driver support. Given all this, I don’t think I’ll be giving it a try anytime soon. Of course, if the Mac tablet happens before June, when I get a new one, I may be singing a different tune. Steve Jobs did say he wouldn’t do a tablet, tho, so I don’t see that happening this year.

I’m curious about something. I was reading a bit about streaming media solutions for the home and it was talking about Apple TV’s declining status in the market. How will Apple deal with the lackluster sales? Will the company kill the product line or release a new and improved version? I have to admit, I haven’t been one to follow Apple, so I can’t say what I think they’ll do. I’m just interested because I think it says something about a company. Most companies seem to try a new market and, if they don’t get the take-off sales they wanted, get out while the getting’s good. We’ve seen how Microsoft works, when you look at the Zune. Sure, they’re not out of the woods, yet, but I have faith. Microsoft knows how to compete and I expect to see the v4 Zune to be what really grabs users. I have no idea what that will be, but I’m sure they’ll figure it out. In the meantime, let’s see how Apple handles itself.

As I work with WPF in Visual Studio 2008 more and more, I’m hitting a lot of pain points. Two are the constant manual refreshing of the designer and what I have lovingly called “phantom” errors. Not too long ago, I came across some information about the first one. The manual refresh (signified by the gold bar) comes up in three cases: (1) there is an error in the XAML; (2) an assembly or related document has been updated; and, (3) the root element has been altered. One of the problems here is that you don’t want the designer to constantly refresh; this would take a lot of unnecessary processing and most likely slow the system down. Luckily, there are plans to resolve the last two. The first one seems to be viewed as a developer problem, tho. I don’t agree with that assessment, obviously. In fact, I think this may be due to the phantom error issue I’ve seen in the XAML editor. Think about it, if the XAML editor thinks you have an error when you don’t, the designer won’t render. The only way to do this is to rebuild, which would automatically reload the designer and the editor. Well, most of the time. I’ve seen cases where the phantom errors stick around and the only way to get rid of them is to close and reopen the file.

While I haven’t found a way around the phantom errors, I’ve almost completely alleviated the designer problem. How? I don’t use it. There’s a setting that will open all XAML documents in the editor. Obviously, when you switch to the design view, you have to manually reload it, but I’ve learned to accept this. I do it rarely, so it’s not a huge deal. I expect these issues to be resolved in SP1, but I don’t expect that until late 2008 or early 2009. By that time, we might be seeing Visual Studio “Rosario,” so there may simply be an upgrade. I have no idea how the next version of Visual Studio will be managed, but I’m starting to think it might be like the VS 2002 to 2003 upgrade. I’m sure we’ll hear more this year.

I just thought this comment from a PC Magazine article was funny: "Apple marketing has the swinging pair of crabapples to actually print 'Leopard Just Works' on its Web site. Hey, at least Microsoft reps have the decency to look a little abashed when you point out their product's screwups. Apple reps just glare at you like they're daring you to say something." Ha, "swinging pair of crabapples." Good stuff

The following consists of the English DVD updates released under the MSDN Premium (Team Suite) subscription level for January 2008.

Developer Tools

• Disc 4405 / Part X14-30600
  • MSDN® Library for Visual Studio® 2008
  • Visual Studio Team System 2008 Team Suite (English)

For more information, see the MSDN Subscriptions Index.