Sheap,

You really have to check what they doing closer. This isn't a tablet play. This is a fundamental restructuring of everything MS does. Phone, tablet and desktop all running the exact same operating system, sharing files seemlessly and hidden under the hood.

The default mode for all operations is what you're calling "tablet software". You can't turn it off. The best you can do outside of that is the comptibility mode, which is there on Intel boxes and not on ARMs. Even then, it's not completely compatible. The OS now lies to you (intentionaly) on matters of security concerns, like looking to see what's in generic locations on the disk. While it's going to be years before everything is out of compatibility mode it's not "just for tablet software". The server management tools are written for the main interface. Office is written for the main interface. That which 90% of people do 90% of every day is all written to be runnable on an ARM.

I'm not sure how close you're following it, or what you do. Half the lawyers I know now only use talbets for their jobs. That includes writing briefs, doing email, filing motions. Most of the developers I know still have a laptop, but many of them have a tablet on the side and do their "life maintainance stuff" on that, while the work goes on the desktop replacement.

There's a lot of factors that are going to push to having this direction continue. The nextgen apps guarantee the full power of your machine to the task at hand, are vastly last likely to hold viruses, offer up immediate and better customer service to the end user.

Not saying that the sky is falling, but I'd totally reasonable that withing 2 years 10% of the won't be able to run a current Java app on something, 4 years probably 40-60% is reasonable. That's based off of the average replacement rate of a computer (2-5 years) and figuring 1/2 of people going to end up taking the computer that does everything they do on a computer.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Saturday, June 23, 2012 - 05:20 pm: Edit

I write software for a living. I don't know what lawyers are using (the mirror universe version of me is a lawyer, but I don't see him often), but if they are writing briefs on tablets, that's going to be a boon for chiropractors. Maybe they are increasing their billable hours by typing at half the speed.

This week's announcement is simply that MS will be producing hardware to run their new OS, because no one else is willing to do it. Everything else about Windows 8 has been known for months or years. Tellingly, they are producing two versions of Surface - one with Intel that runs the real Windows 8, and one with ARM that runs the cut-down, crippled Windows RT version. Even Microsoft's own product lineup emphasizes the difference between the two versions of the OS.

Pretend you are a customer. You can buy an Intel-based PC with Windows 8, that lets you install applications of your choice, keep all your existing Windows software, run a wider variety of third-party software, upgrade your hardware when you see fit, and upgrade the OS as well (or not, as you choose). Or you can buy an ARM-based version, that's just exactly the same, except you can't do any of those things, and it's half the performance of the Intel version (at best). Also, MS can remotely delete any of your software or files whenever they want to, and you have no recourse.

The nVidia Tegra 3 is the fastest ARM CPU, and it's not nearly as fast as as Intel's entry-level Core i3 - much less any of their higher-performance CPUs. It isn't even as fast as newer versions of the obsolescent Core 2, used today only in low-end laptops. Graphics wise, it's much the same, the ARM is great at playing video and maybe competitive with low-end integrated graphics, but compared to any of AMD's or nVidia's own PC graphics devices it is not even in the ballpark. If you ever wondered why ARM CPUs have such good battery life, you don't have to look far - they're efficient because they're slow and limited.

Microsoft's track record with hardware has bee pretty good, so I expect Surface to be a high-quality device. If Windows 8 gets any traction in phones and tablets, I see it as a good reason to buy an Intel-based system, just to get away from all the problems with the ARM-based version of Windows 8, and the gimpy ARM CPUs. But I don't expect Windows 8 to be popular on phones and tablets. More popular than Windows 7, sure, but more popular than iOS or Android? No way.

Metro UI is just not that big of a deal. It's a little like .NET, it's a little like COM, it's a little like going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. It does not mean anything except a new UI, and some technical changes for software developers. Metro UI is perhaps the least meaningful aspect of Windows 8, except in the sense that the traditional Windows interface isn't great for tablets and is bad for phones, so there needed to be something new.

Bottom line, you can argue that PCs are no longer needed and everyone can just use tablets. I would agree that for some people (who only use their PCs for web browsing and occasional email), that may be true, but not for everyone, and not for business use. Again, I like my tablets: I have four, two of my own and two from work. I like having one on my nightstand I can use for email or IM, especially when I get paged from work in the middle of the night. I like having one on the sofa next to me so I can browse the web during commercial breaks, or call up IMDB to look up something I saw on a TV show, or check my fantasy team between plays while watching a football game. I like having one I can take to a con with the electronic MRB on it. I like have a convertible tablet I can take to meetings, even though anyone who brought a real laptop runs rings around me in finding or typing anything. Despite all the great stuff I can do with tablets, I am writing this on my PC. Seriously, I simply couldn't have written it on my tablet, it would have been too awkward - and I have a tablet with a keyboard. For doing real work, tablets just don't get it done. And even if they do, that doesn't mean that ARM is a good, or even an adequate, platform for a PC. And certainly doesn't mean that anyone would want a PC based on the limited Windows RT when they could get the vastly superior full version just as easily.

But to go back to your original point, I feel that if SFBOL were developed today, it could/would/should be developed as a web-based application. Advanced web frameworks make web application development almost as easy as desktop application development. Java on the desktop is not that common. Most Java-based desktop applications are tools for software development, used to write the much more common Java-based server applications. That said, it's highly likely that there will be Java on Windows 8, at least on the full version. It's Oracle's decision, not Microsoft's. If they don't want to kill Java entirely (and it sometimes seems that they do), they'll need to make sure it runs on the newest version of Windows. I mean, that's a no-brainer, right?

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 11:04 pm: Edit

In playing the Canis Minor campaign we have alot of monster scenario's is it possible that the Lab chart in the Misc charts could be setup to tally Lab points like the combat charts do.

That would really save some time.

By Jon Taylor (Vendetta) on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 06:27 pm: Edit

So I updated to the 64 bit client and applied the "nimbus" look and feel. I think I was using Windows before. What a huge difference it makes just looking at the client. It is like night and day. I feel like the whole thing jumped forward like 10 years with that simple change. I highly recommend anyone who isn't using "Nimbus" and can, try it, it is awesome. Thanks Paul for working on the client as you have all these years. There is no way I would be playing at all if this environment didn't exist and I am very grateful for all your hard work. I am sure that everyone who plays our here feels exactly the same way. Thanks

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Monday, August 06, 2012 - 03:34 pm: Edit

This might seem like a nit-pick, but could we fix the Space Dragons so they have a 0 move-cost, a 0 shield-cost, and a 0 life-support-cost? I have found most of the monsters (and other unmanned units. like defsats) suffer from having these costs in the client definitions. I might fix these myself, except I don't know how and don't know how to propagate the changes to everyone.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, August 07, 2012 - 09:49 pm: Edit

The Klingon TD7C has no UIM box on the SSD for guard assignments and hit and runs, that would be a nice improvement, also the ADD(FA) could probably lose the FA since its 360.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Thursday, August 09, 2012 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Ya know.. there's alot of units I'd like to see get the 0-move-cost fix. If I can get an education in how to affect those changes, I'd be willing to do it myself.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, August 09, 2012 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Matt,
It requires a change to the client. There are a number of units that exist that have no EA associated with it. Currently, the client assumes that if there is a definition there is an EA. I need to update the client to support these.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Thursday, August 09, 2012 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Thanks Paul

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, September 07, 2012 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Paul,

Wondering how hard it would be to add a floating window to show who's tractoring who. With a lot of things going on and or long gaps between sessions, it's easy to forget where the tractor links are.

Mike

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Saturday, September 08, 2012 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Mike,
It is possible. A floating "Fleet Info" window I think would be a good idea. Currently I am thinking of two different tabs. 1) Tractor information. 2) Seeking Weapon Target Information.

So people with multi-ship engagements can at a glance have an idea of fleet level information.

Another tab I was just thinking about is a listing of the status of the ships (both friendly and non-friendly)

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 05:01 pm: Edit

As the Zin ... drool.

Another good idea would be opposing fleet info. On long duration games, I've got a couple of note sets open for tracking how many labs, tracctors the other side has used, T-bombs laid (real/fake/unk), shuttles left in the holds, etc.

Being able to have a set of user-defined counters (min/max/current) [sliders maybe?] even without any logic behind them would be a godsend.

Similar concept ... as I've read through a lot of the scenario descriptions, there's often a public counter and/or card mechanic. If you had the counters and could mark some public you could handle those factors as well. All doable with notes/logs/etc., but easier that way.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 02:27 pm: Edit

I had a couple ideas.

First would be a way to simplify floating map piece movement. If there was a command that moved all pieces x number of hexes in the specified direction it would save a ton of time.

The other idea I had was for damage allocation. Currently there is no way for the client to auto allocate Soludra dark matter damage, I was thinking a check box on the damage allocation window where you could specify damage type. Normal would be the default, but weapons that use the damage allocation chart differently like Soludra dark matter damage would have the code to skip the unaffected systems.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Suggestion:

The interface, when launching a shuttle, defaults it to speed '6'. This is handy, as that is the max speed for the standard admin shuttle. However, Advanced Admins can move at speed '8'...the UI still launches them defaulting to speed '6', though.

Would be nice if the UI had a better mapping for max speeds of various shuttles, and defaulted to that value for their launch speed.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, October 14, 2012 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Xander,
So the request is that the default speed for a shuttle/fighter be the max speed, correct?

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, October 15, 2012 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Yes, as that's usually what they would most often be launched at (not always, of course, but the most common choice).

Another suggestion:

I often disable the 'movement controls' from the secondary panel to get more room for columns of ship data...but it's a pretty handy control to have. Would it be possible to make that one of the 'floating' windows, or 'tools'? (Actually, what would be REALLY cool would be to give it a mouse interaction with a counter. Like, middle-mouse-click on a counter and the movement control panel pops up in that area or something.)

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Is there any way to add the ability to float every piece on the board so that its very easy to play with a floating map.

In a duel with only a couple ships and a few seeking weapons its pretty easy to move everything by hand but in larger games it can take a very long time to get everything moved.

I was thinking a float map board button could be added, when a player hit that button it would ask him what direction and how many hexes he would like to float units. This would pop up a window on the oppenents screen, similar to when you tractor a piece the opponent would then have to click yes or no to the floating of the board and it should let that player know how far and in what direction everything will be moved.

I think this would be a very handy tool to add to the client.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I agree with Josh. Especially when playing a heavy-drone race in a large game this can be unbearable.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - 05:43 am: Edit

Agreed. This would be a nice feature. And definitely sounds doable.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - 11:37 am: Edit

I would also like the ability to float the map.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I would prefer to get the next gen SSDs working, myself. I had a chance to put a couple together, and mess around with them in the client (by adding them as "user-defined ships"). There were alot of things that didn't work (such as the shields seemed to be strength 1, regardless of the strength I put in the def)

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - 02:18 pm: Edit

It wasnt my goal that the SSD project be slowed to add this feature I just think if its a doable feature it should be added to the list of future enhancements.

After all most scenario's have one of two types of maps fixed or floating, and currently the floating map type is very hard to do on the client.

When I get an idea I always find its best if I record it in some way otherwise I forget about it.

I do know that the priority right now is the SSD's and the slow progress is also a concern of mine.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, December 04, 2012 - 09:07 pm: Edit

I will work on this when I get a chance. It is not that much work compared how much work I still need to do for the Next Gen SSDs. The Next Gen SSDs will still need another 16 hours of coding (possibly more) to get it integrated with the rest of the client.

The floating map feature as suggested will take 1 or 2.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - 05:22 pm: Edit

For the WYN TA-BC and the Orion TBR and TCA could you add the PPD and ESG markers that are so handy on Lyran and ISC ships that use these weapons.

Some of use like to experiment with those in option mounts and the counters would be very handy.

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Saturday, January 19, 2013 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Paul, I have a couple of enhancement requests.
First, can you put the EPT choice ALWAYS in the drop down box for plasma, I constantly forget to change the state in the disposables, and then have to cancel, change, reactivate activity, and launch.

This one is an enhancement... we know what phasers fired, is it possible to automatically handle phaser capaciters?

Gregg