<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for NotImplementedException</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.notimplementedexception.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com</link>
	<description>.net/mono - c#/vb.net - windows/ubuntu</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Using in-line delegates for logging by silky</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/28/using-in-line-delegates-for-logging/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>silky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 23:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/28/using-in-line-delegates-for-logging/#comment-45</guid>
		<description>well in that case; nice :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well in that case; nice <img src='http://www.notimplementedexception.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Using in-line delegates for logging by Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/28/using-in-line-delegates-for-logging/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 15:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/28/using-in-line-delegates-for-logging/#comment-44</guid>
		<description>The cost of creating the delegate is at compile time.  Think of the delegate as a function pointer.  If the delegate is not called then there is no run-time cost associated with it. I'm not sure exactly what the MSIL looks like, but I have profiled this approach and it's as good as putting an if block around each log line.  The synatx gets a little neater when using a lambda expression in C# 3.0 instead of the delegate syntax - but this is just further syntax sugar, and not always possible if many lines of code are required.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The cost of creating the delegate is at compile time.  Think of the delegate as a function pointer.  If the delegate is not called then there is no run-time cost associated with it. I&#8217;m not sure exactly what the MSIL looks like, but I have profiled this approach and it&#8217;s as good as putting an if block around each log line.  The synatx gets a little neater when using a lambda expression in C# 3.0 instead of the delegate syntax - but this is just further syntax sugar, and not always possible if many lines of code are required.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Using in-line delegates for logging by silky</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/28/using-in-line-delegates-for-logging/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>silky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 09:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/28/using-in-line-delegates-for-logging/#comment-43</guid>
		<description>so delegate creation is cheaper?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so delegate creation is cheaper?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8216;Interesting&#8217; UAC prompts. by Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/04/11/interesting-uac-prompts/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/04/11/interesting-uac-prompts/#comment-30</guid>
		<description>Al - I think whether UAC is there or not is one thing.  Whether it does sensible things is another!  If you really don't want UAC you can switch it off - but if you do want it then it needs to behave!  I'm always an admin on my computer - so UAC is little more than an annoyance most of the time... just imagine working on a computer where you are not an admin - yet you are being prompted by UAC at times to delete files you just created! That's got to be annoying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Al - I think whether UAC is there or not is one thing.  Whether it does sensible things is another!  If you really don&#8217;t want UAC you can switch it off - but if you do want it then it needs to behave!  I&#8217;m always an admin on my computer - so UAC is little more than an annoyance most of the time&#8230; just imagine working on a computer where you are not an admin - yet you are being prompted by UAC at times to delete files you just created! That&#8217;s got to be annoying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8216;Interesting&#8217; UAC prompts. by Al Nicol</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/04/11/interesting-uac-prompts/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Al Nicol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/04/11/interesting-uac-prompts/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>The idea of having 'elevation' dialogs is not new. Various flavours of Linux have had it for a while, and it seems to work very well. There is a very fine line to tread. If you don't ask for admin privileges in enough cases, you present a security hole. If you ask too many times, users begin to ignore the 'elevation' messages because they are a pain.

Vista seems seems to have stepped a little too far onto the 'messages are a pain' side of things. When UAC prompts start to reduce your productivity, you have to weigh them up against the lack of productivity of not having UAC. For me, I never had problems with security ... UAC just hinders me. I don't know enough to know whether the average user is helped or hindered by UAC.

Sure, you can argue that for massive companies, with big IT departments, that UAC is a godsend. For the average Joe like me, they are just a pain. Let me do what I want to do ... it's my computer after all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea of having &#8216;elevation&#8217; dialogs is not new. Various flavours of Linux have had it for a while, and it seems to work very well. There is a very fine line to tread. If you don&#8217;t ask for admin privileges in enough cases, you present a security hole. If you ask too many times, users begin to ignore the &#8216;elevation&#8217; messages because they are a pain.</p>
<p>Vista seems seems to have stepped a little too far onto the &#8216;messages are a pain&#8217; side of things. When UAC prompts start to reduce your productivity, you have to weigh them up against the lack of productivity of not having UAC. For me, I never had problems with security &#8230; UAC just hinders me. I don&#8217;t know enough to know whether the average user is helped or hindered by UAC.</p>
<p>Sure, you can argue that for massive companies, with big IT departments, that UAC is a godsend. For the average Joe like me, they are just a pain. Let me do what I want to do &#8230; it&#8217;s my computer after all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Troubleshooting stutters on Windows Vista by Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/07/troubleshooting-stutters-on-windows-vista/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/07/troubleshooting-stutters-on-windows-vista/#comment-22</guid>
		<description>androidi - I've now posted my findings to the forum thread also. As you say - there is a minefield of solutions to this problem out there. People can find the forum thread &lt;a href="http://forums.microsoft.com/msdn/showpost.aspx?postid=1196678" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>androidi - I&#8217;ve now posted my findings to the forum thread also. As you say - there is a minefield of solutions to this problem out there. People can find the forum thread <a href="http://forums.microsoft.com/msdn/showpost.aspx?postid=1196678" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Troubleshooting stutters on Windows Vista by androidi</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/07/troubleshooting-stutters-on-windows-vista/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>androidi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/07/troubleshooting-stutters-on-windows-vista/#comment-21</guid>
		<description>Oh and if you do report this to them could you link that thread (and mention there's dozens of other threads reporting the same if you google around).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh and if you do report this to them could you link that thread (and mention there&#8217;s dozens of other threads reporting the same if you google around).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Troubleshooting stutters on Windows Vista by androidi</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/07/troubleshooting-stutters-on-windows-vista/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>androidi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:53:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2008/03/07/troubleshooting-stutters-on-windows-vista/#comment-20</guid>
		<description>Hey. Did you report this at the site linked in 3rd post in that thread? It bothers me that Intel has already replied twice that they can't repro the problem. In the thread we see the same problem across Gigabyte,MSI,Abit,Asus ... The only common thing here is ICH9R. Either the drivers are broken or the are some faulty ICH9R chips out there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey. Did you report this at the site linked in 3rd post in that thread? It bothers me that Intel has already replied twice that they can&#8217;t repro the problem. In the thread we see the same problem across Gigabyte,MSI,Abit,Asus &#8230; The only common thing here is ICH9R. Either the drivers are broken or the are some faulty ICH9R chips out there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Adding a column with DataType VarBinaryMax using SMO by Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.notimplementedexception.com/2006/08/24/adding-a-column-with-datatype-varbinarymax-using-smo/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notimplementedexception.com/wordpress/wordpress/?p=4#comment-5</guid>
		<description>This seems to have been picked up by Microsoft and fixed:

http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=233992</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This seems to have been picked up by Microsoft and fixed:</p>
<p><a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=233992" rel="nofollow">http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=233992</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
