Is DHTML Dead? [Archive] - DevX.com Forums

Dave

12-19-2001, 09:02 PM

Absolutely NOT.

(1) .NET is NOT a replacement for CSS/DHTML. If and when .NET becomes commonplace,
it will coexist with this. Any 'browser-based' app (or ASP.NET app) will
_use_ CSS/DHTML to render properly in each browser. Um, I would think any
web app coder would inherently know this. C'mon now, what does a server-side
control do? Render HTML! What is the power of such a control? To render said
HTML properly and invisibly based on browser incompatabilities! How? By sniffing
the browser and using that browser's capabilities accordingly! This is not
any different from how things are done today. Only the delivery mechanism
is different.

(1.1) Why do you write an article that only briefly mentions browser-based
apps and then spends the majority of it's verbage describing NON-BROWSER
.NET APPS and then (mis)label it as "Is DHTML Dead"? Why not label it as
it should be... "Another interesting application for .NET"?

(1.2) CSS/DHTML are W3C specs. .NET is only a MS product. Methinks the writer
is slyly trying to sneak yet another pro-MS article about an as yet vaporware
product down my throat. Methinks if any objective developer would look at
the range of products and specs out there for _browser_ apps he/she would
realize that (a) there are a range of mature ways to use existing plarforms
that ddon't involve .NET, (b) .NET will most certainly be a tool to have
in one's arsenal but...

(1.3) For the next few years .NET will only be good for distributed apps
that run on Windows platforms. Um, to quote the author: "Windows...makes
up over 90% of the clients" out there. Um, if I write my CSS properly - using
STYLE and @IMPORT, understand how NS4 ignores some BODY styles and IE4/5
misuse padding - I can actually reach something close to 98% of the clients
quite easily. Much easier than I can (re)learn VB to properly work with VB.NET.

(2.0) Let's not forget the true use of CSS... non-browser web clients like
Palms and such. How is .NET going to deal with these? Certainly not by downloading
the Framework/runtime and then using a rich client! There's only one way....
ASP.NET server-side controls. Which (again) means coding proper CSS/DHTML
so that things render properly no matter what the client is.

Believe it or not I use MS platforms early 100% of the time. But I'm beginning
to realize that MS has really stumbled lately with XP activation and licensing
and that there's a whole world of non-MS stuff out there that's quite mature.
So go ahead.... bring on the flames.

Robert Pappas

12-19-2001, 10:35 PM

I'm a long-time Microsoft Developer. I also do a lot of Java programming.

So I play both sides of this fence. I DO like .NET, and I DO think .NET
is going to be very stiff competition for Java (J2EE).

And I think Microsoft makes developer IDE's that blow away any Java IDE I've
ever seen.

However, one thing I would NEVER EVER do is make a Web Site that only be
viewed by someone running Windows.

The author of this article states that making Web Sites that only run on
Windows is "not that much of a limitation".

I was actually agreeing and buying into everything he said until I read that
line, and then he lost all credibility with me.

If the only way onto the Internet is through a Microsoft Operating System,
then you might as well hand the keys for our whole economy over to Microsoft.

The "magic" of the web is that I can make a browser for any computer or device
that implements the W3C standards, and that device will instantly have access
to the Web.

I know that there are some efforts to port some form of .NET to other operating
systems. But I'm doubt these will be largely successful. (I've spent the
last several years watching lots of companies struggle with porting COM/DCOM/ActiveX/etc.
to Unix.)

I'll give one bit of credit to Sun: Java was designed from the ground up
with the thought of making something that will work on any platform.

.NET was designed from the ground up to be something that would work on Windows,
and let everyone else worry about how to port this beast.

.NET's biggest benefit will be on the Server Side only, where it can compete
head-to-head with Java's J2EE. .NET will not succeed as a platform-independent
client technology.

I agree with the author that learning .NET will be important, just to be
well marketable. But I think it is HE who should be re-thinking career plans
if he thinks that having every computer and every device in the world having
to run Windows is "not that much of a limitation".

Robert Pappas
rpappas@sound.net

Anil Saraswathy

12-19-2001, 11:00 PM

"Carrie Sherrill" <csherrill@devx.com> wrote:
>
>Have the problems associated with browser incompatibilities, technology
advances,
>and .NET killed off DHTML and browsers for distributed application development?

DHTML still rules despite the advent of Flash and Java applets. If you are
just referring to web sites, I would agree with you. Web sites tend to get
flashier using Flash and Java applets. However, serious Web applications
still use DHTML. I can build a complete Email application using DHTML. Using
Flash to build the same would be a joke. So is the case with Java applets
thanks to the performance issues. In fact, I had the personal experience
of moving over from Java applets to DHTML for our application. But that was
5 years ago. However, even now I feel that for light-weight client-side Internet
applications, DHTML is still the king! We recently designed a framework for
developing and deploying directory-enabled workflows, for which we had to
choose some client-side technology for UI. Guess what we chose...DHTML....Had
we chosen Java or Flash or even .NET, I think it would have been suicidal!!

Yes, I agree there are browser incompatibilities. We have lived long enough
to learn those and support them both. Therefore, it has not become that big
of a problem these days.

Peder Bennedsen

12-20-2001, 02:14 AM

Definitely not!

We are currently developing a large application using DHTML in MS IE 5.0+.
We build the whole presentation layer in "single-HTML-page" applications
using VbScript/DHTML on the client. Using XmlHttp to get XML-data from Webservices
build with .NET. Transforming XML with XSLT on the client to make an extremely
smooth and fast performing user-interface because the whole presentation
layer is cached on the client. This is a very powerfull technology with facilities
and appearance very similar to Windows forms.
The code is astonishing light! Compare a 100-500 Kb script to the 20 Mb(?)
.NET runtime! Development is pure fun with Visual Studio .NET and fairly
simple with MS Script Debugger.

Of course this is only possible because we don't have to care about the 10%(!)
that do not use MS IE 5.0+.

"Carrie Sherrill" <csherrill@devx.com> wrote:
>
>Have the problems associated with browser incompatibilities, technology
advances,
>and .NET killed off DHTML and browsers for distributed application development?
>
>Carrie Sherrill
>DevX Managing Editor

Rich Ashby

12-20-2001, 03:38 AM

"Carrie Sherrill" <csherrill@devx.com> wrote:
>
>Have the problems associated with browser incompatibilities, technology
advances,
>and .NET killed off DHTML and browsers for distributed application development?
>
>Carrie Sherrill
>DevX Managing Editor

Some interesting points early on, but credibility of this article ruined
by predicting death of the browser/dhtml because of an unproven technology!
Bill himself says MS are taking a huge gamble .NET's success!

The article seems to focus on B2C, but don't forget distributed apps in B2B/B2E.
Intranets are going to follow standards and low total cost of ownership,
in which case browsers rule. Why develop many standalone apps when you can
deliver an integrated system cross-enterprise with portal technology through
a common version of a browser?

Java and .NET will likely go head to head over this, but I can't see one
winning over the other. Companies will make a choice based on cost of ownership,
scalability and backwards compatibility- plus no company in it's right mind
would have every system coming from one vendor- think XP licencing because
of Windows' historical OS dominance!

Colin Saxton

12-20-2001, 04:00 AM

Oh no! What am I going to do??? I will have to learn .NET now???

This article was the biggest load of MS garbage I have ever had to read...This
is just a ploy to pull you straight into .NET technologies.

I suggest to Harris that he is on the MS payroll...I have heard MS say before
in a past article that "Windows is the only serious OS" and Harris seems
to have reflected this thought...Do they train these guys in some secret
Microsoft brain washing camp???

I am seriously considering never using DEVX as a source of info ever again...It
is obviously becoming taken over by MS fans...I recently read an article
in the Java section that pushed you towards .NET technologies...(Java is
closer to .NET than you think) which should have been named (.NET has ripped
off all of Javas good ideas and made a hash of them with C-"HASH")

Get real and write what you think not what MS want to hear...I hope it was
worth your entire credibility as a serious developer...

MarkN

12-20-2001, 05:31 AM

I was following this article right up to the point where he said .Net has
the advantage over Java because it doesn't have to run in a browser and can
communicate over HTTP. Uh, Java can do this too (Java Web Start) and
has been able to do this for quite a while. Java DOES NOT REQUIRE a browser.
Applets DON'T REQUIRE a browser. We were able to take a browser/applet
based application and change it to a standalone app in 5 minutes. The only
'advantage' .Net has is it runs in native code. Any code that does that
won't run anywhere else. Java is usually slow because the code was written
wrong.

Please correct these inaccurate statements and publish it.

MarkN

12-20-2001, 05:35 AM

>Believe it or not I use MS platforms early 100% of the time. But I'm beginning
>to realize that MS has really stumbled lately with XP activation and licensing
>and that there's a whole world of non-MS stuff out there that's quite mature.
>So go ahead.... bring on the flames.

Dave. You are not alone in thinking of looking elsewhere because of XP's
requirements. I've rumblings and those that have implemented with Java can
jump ship. That is why .Net is so important to MS.

Mark

MarkN

12-20-2001, 05:41 AM

>And I think Microsoft makes developer IDE's that blow away any Java IDE
I've
>ever seen.

I do programming in both and it seems to me you've been using the wrong Java
IDE.

>.NET's biggest benefit will be on the Server Side only, where it can compete
>head-to-head with Java's J2EE.

.Net doesn't have the server side tools that Java has access to. And the
only ones it does only run on windows and you have to access most through
COM.

MarkN

12-20-2001, 05:46 AM

I might be right behind you. I quit getting VBPJ because it spent more time
with showing one how to get around its limitations and how to use databound
controls and less on how to build enterprise apps with tools like MSMQ.
Especially since I was also using Java too and it pained me to attempt to
accomplish the same things in VB.

"Colin Saxton" <ccs@efacs.com> wrote:
>
>Oh no! What am I going to do??? I will have to learn .NET now???
>
>This article was the biggest load of MS garbage I have ever had to read...This
>is just a ploy to pull you straight into .NET technologies.
>
>I suggest to Harris that he is on the MS payroll...I have heard MS say before
>in a past article that "Windows is the only serious OS" and Harris seems
>to have reflected this thought...Do they train these guys in some secret
>Microsoft brain washing camp???
>
>I am seriously considering never using DEVX as a source of info ever again...It
>is obviously becoming taken over by MS fans...I recently read an article
>in the Java section that pushed you towards .NET technologies...(Java is
>closer to .NET than you think) which should have been named (.NET has ripped
>off all of Javas good ideas and made a hash of them with C-"HASH")
>
>Get real and write what you think not what MS want to hear...I hope it was
>worth your entire credibility as a serious developer...

MarkN

12-20-2001, 05:52 AM

"Phil Weber" <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote:
> > Have the problems associated with browser incompatibilities,
> > technology advances, and .NET killed off DHTML and browsers
> > for distributed application development?
>
>Carrie: Not for me. I still use DHTML in my pages, but I only guarantee
them
>to work correctly under Internet Explorer 5.0+. I try to ensure that my
>pages "degrade gracefully" in other browsers, but the browser wars are over,
>and users who expect to make full use of the Web should be using the de
>facto standard browser on the de facto standard operating system.
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>P.S. -- Congratulations on the new last name! :-)
>
>

Phil,
So, if I am not using IE 5 and/or Windows on the web, I am just playing
around on the web. "Hey all you Mac and Linux users stop playing around
and get real tools!" I would say if one doesn't use a browser or Windows
that they are making better use of the web. At least that way they won't
be able to see articles such as these that tell half truths.

Mark

MarkN

12-20-2001, 05:58 AM

"Anil Saraswathy" <gs_anil@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Carrie Sherrill" <csherrill@devx.com> wrote:
>>
>>Have the problems associated with browser incompatibilities, technology
>advances,
>>and .NET killed off DHTML and browsers for distributed application development?
>
>DHTML still rules despite the advent of Flash and Java applets. If you are
>just referring to web sites, I would agree with you. Web sites tend to get
>flashier using Flash and Java applets. However, serious Web applications
>still use DHTML. I can build a complete Email application using DHTML. Using
>Flash to build the same would be a joke. So is the case with Java applets
>thanks to the performance issues. In fact, I had the personal experience
>of moving over from Java applets to DHTML for our application. But that
was
>5 years ago. However, even now I feel that for light-weight client-side
Internet
>applications, DHTML is still the king! We recently designed a framework
for
>developing and deploying directory-enabled workflows, for which we had to
>choose some client-side technology for UI. Guess what we chose...DHTML....Had
>we chosen Java or Flash or even .NET, I think it would have been suicidal!!
>
>Yes, I agree there are browser incompatibilities. We have lived long enough
>to learn those and support them both. Therefore, it has not become that
big
>of a problem these days.

DHTML is faster. But the TCO is more, there are things that cannot be done
in it that can be Java, and DHTML is tied to the browser. So if your app
only needs to run in a browser and none of the pieces need to be reused and
you won't have any major changes in the future then, yes, DHTML is king.

Mark

12-20-2001, 07:44 AM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
>

>.Net doesn't have the server side tools that Java has access to. And the
>only ones it does only run on windows and you have to access most through
>COM.

That's overstated. Check out Mono, the Open Source C# implementation - it
plans to implement _everything_ in the System.* namespace.

As to the "server side tools" - if one IS on Windows (and a lot of people
are), I think you've got it wrong. Anyone who has done any work on Windows
server platforms at all has to concede the incredible richness of advanced
APIs - Telephony, MSMQ, ADSI (a cool abstraction of LDAP), ADO/ADOX/OleDb
(far more powerful than JDBC), CryptoAPI, transactional components, the System.XML.*
objects - I'm sorry, but even J2E is pretty much blown away.

Markn

12-20-2001, 08:11 AM

Robert Pappas

12-20-2001, 09:38 AM

>Of course this is only possible because we don't have to care about the 10%(!)
>that do not use MS IE 5.0+.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of web application are you writing where
you have the luxury of targeting only one operating system? And if you are
targeting only one operating system, why even make it a Web Application?
If you are targeting Win32 only, you could even use ActiveX or a stand-alone
VB client, or whatever you want.

At our company, even for INTRAnet applications we target both IE5 and Netscape
6.2, even though we currently all have Windows on our desktops. To do otherwise
would be irresponsible, and would limit the technologies we choose and the
companies we buy in the future.

Netscape is only 10% you say? At the last place I worked, only 4% of the
I.T. staff were women, but we still gave them a women's bathroom. It's more
than a matter of principle, it's simply the way things HAVE to be.

You cannot ever support any group, any company, any technology to the exclusion
of all others. Period.

It's non-proprietary open standards or it's NOTHING.

Robert Pappas
rpappas@sound.net

Joe Monroe

12-20-2001, 10:54 AM

So you have IT staff to support Unix, Linux, OS/2, Macs, etc. even though
you only have Windows desktops? That seems like an awful waste of
resources.

"Robert Pappas" <rpappas@sound.net> wrote in message
news:3c21f800$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> You cannot ever support any group, any company, any technology to the
exclusion
> of all others. Period.
>
> It's non-proprietary open standards or it's NOTHING.
>
> Robert Pappas
> rpappas@sound.net

Markn

12-20-2001, 11:51 AM

Just Java.

"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>So you have IT staff to support Unix, Linux, OS/2, Macs, etc. even though
>you only have Windows desktops? That seems like an awful waste of
>resources.
>
>"Robert Pappas" <rpappas@sound.net> wrote in message
>news:3c21f800$1@147.208.176.211...
>>
>> You cannot ever support any group, any company, any technology to the
>exclusion
>> of all others. Period.
>>
>> It's non-proprietary open standards or it's NOTHING.
>>
>> Robert Pappas
>> rpappas@sound.net
>
>

Michael Yeager

12-20-2001, 12:00 PM

There are at least three factors that Russell Jones completely ignores in
his article.

First, by saying that DHTML is dead, he is saying that ASP.NET is dead.

ASP.NET controls generate DHTML to work their magic. And ASP.NET is built
so that it can be easily enhanced with DHTML.

Second, he doesn't address the fact that the .NET Runtime, at its smallest
possible size, is at least 20MB.

No OS currently comes with it installed (including XP). And the size of this
download, plus all the required components, are a significant barrier to
it's widespread installation.

And third, he doesn't consider the Internet Explorer team's ongoing development
of DHTML Behaviors.

If you point IE6 at http://msdn.microsoft.com/net and take a close look at
the navigation widget in the left column, at its heart you'll find a very
sophisticated DHTML Behavior.

DHTML Behaviors are simple, lightweight, script or binary based components
that encapsulate a specific functionality.

And developers should take them seriously as Microsoft obviously does...

"Carrie Sherrill" <csherrill@devx.com> wrote:
>
>Have the problems associated with browser incompatibilities, technology
advances,
>and .NET killed off DHTML and browsers for distributed application development?
>
>Carrie Sherrill
>DevX Managing Editor

Robert Pappas

12-20-2001, 12:19 PM

"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>So you have IT staff to support Unix, Linux, OS/2, Macs, etc. even though
>you only have Windows desktops? That seems like an awful waste of
>resources.

Nope. It's because we follow open standards that we don't have support costs
for new technologies. Anyone can plug a Mac into our network and browse
our Intranet and run our Intranet applications. Zero support cost. We have
some people in marketing who use Macs, and we just bought a company that
runs a lot of Linux. No problems.

It's 10 years of Microsoft Windows that have I.T. departments across the
world scared of support costs. It doesn't have to be this way.

When I buy a new dishwasher, I don't worry about it being compatible with
my refrigerator, or my blender. I just plug it in an use it. So I'm free
to buy a dishwasher from a company that might only have 5% market share,
and I'm still not worried. THAT is capitalism at it's best, and that is
good for everyone. :)

Desktop technology must and will move in this direction. You put a device
on their desktop, or in their hand, and they just plug it into the Internet
and they can do whatever they want.

This "Winner take ALL" game that Microsoft (and SUN!) is playing is ultimately
bad for all of us, and more and more people are waking up to that fact every
day.

Robert Pappas
rpappas@sound.net

Peder Bennedsen

12-20-2001, 12:47 PM

Our users are about 10.000 voluntary sports-leaders. We provide access to
knowledge-base, administrative facilities and so on. We know from national
statistics that up to 90% of all users runs Windows with IE 5.0+ or at least
can upgrade easily.
We have limited ressources. If we choose to support all operating systems
and all flavours of browsers, we will have no change of fulfilling the primary
goals for the project.
We have used ActiveX encapsulated in web-pages for other projects. It is
OK, but the users need to download far to many megs from the start and everytime
we make changes.
From our point of wiev, the "DHTML-runtime" combined with XmlHttp/Webservices
in IE 5.0 is lean and mean. It is not quite as rich as VB when it comes to
IDE and graphics, but it is so easy to develop fast, lean database-applications.

All the other suggestions mentioned in this forum are interesting, but some
are dependent on download of enormous runtimes, some produce just stoneage
HTML with bad userinterface and high bandwith demands and some are even less
standardized...

Life is full of choices. We were forced to go for a cheap, widely accepted
and fairly bug-free standard with a minimum of support. So we dropped Netscape
like so many others.

"Robert Pappas" <rpappas@sound.net> wrote:
>
>>Of course this is only possible because we don't have to care about the
10%(!)
>>that do not use MS IE 5.0+.
>
>Just out of curiosity, what kind of web application are you writing where
>you have the luxury of targeting only one operating system? And if you
are
>targeting only one operating system, why even make it a Web Application?
> If you are targeting Win32 only, you could even use ActiveX or a stand-alone
>VB client, or whatever you want.
>
>At our company, even for INTRAnet applications we target both IE5 and Netscape
>6.2, even though we currently all have Windows on our desktops. To do otherwise
>would be irresponsible, and would limit the technologies we choose and the
>companies we buy in the future.
>
>Netscape is only 10% you say? At the last place I worked, only 4% of the
>I.T. staff were women, but we still gave them a women's bathroom. It's
more
>than a matter of principle, it's simply the way things HAVE to be.
>
>You cannot ever support any group, any company, any technology to the exclusion
>of all others. Period.
>
>It's non-proprietary open standards or it's NOTHING.
>
>Robert Pappas
>rpappas@sound.net

Peder Bennedsen

12-20-2001, 01:00 PM

Are we talking about the same here??? :-)

I would not call a collection of HTML-pages, that can be published on all
these platforms for a modern Intranet application. The user will spend a
lot of time waiting for page refreshes with say 50% redundant data. The servers
will be fighting all the time with the presentation layer. Smooth and gentle
flow between modules and pages is almost non-existing in this kind of technology.

DHTML+XmlHttp in IE 5.0+ comes very close to a real Windows-application with
an interface that does not offend the users.

"Robert Pappas" <rpappas@sound.net> wrote:
>
>"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>>So you have IT staff to support Unix, Linux, OS/2, Macs, etc. even though
>>you only have Windows desktops? That seems like an awful waste of
>>resources.
>
>Nope. It's because we follow open standards that we don't have support
costs
>for new technologies. Anyone can plug a Mac into our network and browse
>our Intranet and run our Intranet applications. Zero support cost. We
have
>some people in marketing who use Macs, and we just bought a company that
>runs a lot of Linux. No problems.
>
>It's 10 years of Microsoft Windows that have I.T. departments across the
>world scared of support costs. It doesn't have to be this way.
>
>When I buy a new dishwasher, I don't worry about it being compatible with
>my refrigerator, or my blender. I just plug it in an use it. So I'm free
>to buy a dishwasher from a company that might only have 5% market share,
>and I'm still not worried. THAT is capitalism at it's best, and that is
>good for everyone. :)
>
>Desktop technology must and will move in this direction. You put a device
>on their desktop, or in their hand, and they just plug it into the Internet
>and they can do whatever they want.
>
>This "Winner take ALL" game that Microsoft (and SUN!) is playing is ultimately
>bad for all of us, and more and more people are waking up to that fact every
>day.
>
>Robert Pappas
>rpappas@sound.net

Peder Bennedsen

12-20-2001, 01:15 PM

Nice point about the dishwasher. But try to look at it the other way around:

You can buy any dishwasher because plates are standardized! If 90% of all
dishwashers supports round plates and the rest supports rectangular plates,
triangular plates (or maybe only cups), what would you do?
I would buy a dishwasher that cleans my round plates. I agree that it is
not at all nice if there is only one manufacturer, but as long as the machine
does the job fast, cheap and reliable, I will stick to it.

And: If you produce plates, would you produce the round ones, that have a
market or would you produce the odd-shaped that people will not buy because
they cant buy a dishwasher for them in the future...

I know this argumentation somewhat "bites itself in the tail" (is that how
you say it in english?) - but isnt this realy what it is all about...?

"Robert Pappas" <rpappas@sound.net> wrote:
>
>"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>>So you have IT staff to support Unix, Linux, OS/2, Macs, etc. even though
>>you only have Windows desktops? That seems like an awful waste of
>>resources.
>
>Nope. It's because we follow open standards that we don't have support
costs
>for new technologies. Anyone can plug a Mac into our network and browse
>our Intranet and run our Intranet applications. Zero support cost. We
have
>some people in marketing who use Macs, and we just bought a company that
>runs a lot of Linux. No problems.
>
>It's 10 years of Microsoft Windows that have I.T. departments across the
>world scared of support costs. It doesn't have to be this way.
>
>When I buy a new dishwasher, I don't worry about it being compatible with
>my refrigerator, or my blender. I just plug it in an use it. So I'm free
>to buy a dishwasher from a company that might only have 5% market share,
>and I'm still not worried. THAT is capitalism at it's best, and that is
>good for everyone. :)
>
>Desktop technology must and will move in this direction. You put a device
>on their desktop, or in their hand, and they just plug it into the Internet
>and they can do whatever they want.
>
>This "Winner take ALL" game that Microsoft (and SUN!) is playing is ultimately
>bad for all of us, and more and more people are waking up to that fact every
>day.
>
>Robert Pappas
>rpappas@sound.net

Aaron Sevivas

12-20-2001, 04:27 PM

I don't think any technology is dead until people stop using it. There is
a product team in the company I'm currently working with that just put together
a really sweet looking sight using some DHTML objects. This reminds me of
the "Is Foxpro dead?" discussion..

Dustin Steele

12-20-2001, 05:04 PM

The following post is a copy of the note I sent to the editor. Per her suggestion,
I have placed a copy of it here in order to share the comments publicly.

To the editor,

From an editorial standpoint you've accomplished a significant goal,
you've managed to hold the reader's attention and get a response. However,
there is more to editing than catchy titles. If you had any journalistic
integrity, you'd issue a retraction of this article and apologize to your
readers for printing material that is inaccurate and misleading.

The article is a major journalistic failure. The integrity of this author
has been questioned by many in the posts, his skills as a journalist are
in obvious peril.

The abstract to the article reads:
"DHTML gave Web developers lots of flexibility and end users lots of interactivity,
but technology marches on. Senior Editor A. Russell Jones says that thanks
to irresolute browser incompatibilities, more efficient client-side technologies
such as Flash, the indefatigable Java applet, and now .NET, DHTML-and even
browsers themselves-will soon be abandoned for application development."
DHTML is not dead as many of the "end users" who've read the article
have pointed out.

Java requries a virtual machine to allow execution, causing overhead
that is unnecessary for typical client-side tasks (take roll-overs for example).
Likewise, Flash requires a browser plug-in which forces loading of the entire
"scene" before execution can occur. The DOM, CSS, and JavaScript are all
key elements to developing DHTML apps and are all supported by standards
organizations, which means those who create browsers have standards to follow,
if they so choose.

The idea that the browser will be replaced by the Windows and more specifically
the .NET platform is a ridiculous and gross misconception. The delivery mechanism
for Microsoft's new XML based platform is the browser on any client, whether
it be the traditional pc, or the newer mobile devices (phones, handheld pcs,
etc). If you don't believe me, see what Microsoft's own spin on it. (http://www.microsoft.com/net/whatis.asp
- Clients)

Flash and Java both have something that has yet to be provided for DHTML,
a high-quality integrated development environment (IDE). There have been
many tools created for Java. Flash, of course, has their own utilities. DHTML?
Maybe you could argue Interdev, FrontPage, Ultradev or others, but I'd disagree.
These platforms offer too much of everything else and don't offer things
like a code library of predefined (useful!!!!) scripts. Java and Flash both
have code libraries that allow for easy implementation of commonly used features.
DHTML doesn't have this kind of environment to further its development.
Cnsistent broswer support hasn't been there. This is about the only thing
the author was correct in pointing out. Those who develop browsers and incorporated
the standards have been successful. However, even Netscape's limited implementation
of the standards allowed them to develop an IDE for DHTML written completely
in DHTML. (http://developer.netscape.com/docs/examples/dynhtml/visual/)

Here's a few more DHTML reusable libraries that provide high-quality
development tools.
DynAPI - a cross browser API that allows development in essentially every
browser in use. (http://dynapi.sourceforge.net/dynapi/)
DOMLib - a DHTML library for use with DOM compatible browsers. (http://www.dynamic-core.net/tools/domlib/index.htm)
The article Is DHTML Dead, is useless.

Waiting for an apology,
Dustin Steele

Dustin Steele

12-20-2001, 05:06 PM

The following is the note I received from Russell Jones, who graciously replied
to my original note to the editor.

Dustin:

If you're looking for an apology, you won't get it from me. Journalistic
integrity--in an editorial--means providing an honest opinion, and I did
that. I think you're looking at the editorial from a "Web page" viewpoint,
and that's not what the editorial addresses--I specifically said "distributed
applications." However, in lieu of an apology, I'll take the points you mention
and try to let you see why I think this way.

"Java requries a virtual machine to allow execution, causing overhead that
is unnecessary for typical client-side tasks (take roll-overs for example).
Likewise, Flash requires a browser plug-in which forces loading of the entire
"scene" before execution can occur. The DOM, CSS, and JavaScript are all
key elements to developing DHTML apps and are all supported by standards
organizations, which means those who create browsers have standards to follow,
if they so choose."

So what? All client-side programming today needs some kind of support. The
fact that MS provides it (MS Scripting Host) with the browser doesn't negate
that need. Netscape also provides a runtime environment for scripting. Java
needs a runtime, .NET needs a runtime--even C++ needs runtime files. A one-time
20M download isn't much of an issue *now*, let alone in the future, in business
environments, where dialup connections are the exception rather than the
rule, and runtimes are generally pre-installed by the IT support anyway.
As far as standards, the CLR and the C# language were just accepted by ECMA--the
same organization, let me point out, that makes JavaScript a standard.

I don't have any argument with using DHTML for web page rollovers--but rollovers
don't make "applications," and again, that's what the ednote addresses. Furthermore,
if you're not using a browser, you don't need DHTML to provide rollover support--and
you can do it in a much more generic and maintainable way than is possible
using script in a browser.

"The idea that the browser will be replaced by the Windows and more specifically
the .NET platform is a ridiculous and gross misconception. The delivery mechanism
for Microsoft's new XML based platform is the browser on any client, whether
it be the traditional pc, or the newer mobile devices (phones, handheld pcs,
etc). If you don't believe me, see what Microsoft's own spin on it. (http://www.microsoft.com/net/whatis.asp
- Clients)"

Ask yourself what Microsoft is doing with Web Services; and then ask yourself
if you need a browser *at all* to deliver applications using those services.
The answer is: not for Windows applications built with .NET. If you need
browser services for information *display*, you'll be able to use built-in
.NET classes (in the future) to provide them. For now, you have to perform
COM interop with IE, which isn't much of a problem. I fully expect IE to
become a .NET application shortly. As such, it will provide a distribution
channel for the .NET runtime. For other client types, remind yourself that
the editorial does not target information displays, with whatever type of
client. I'm targeting applications; and the typical corporate application
is not now, nor is it likely to ever be delivered on a 2 or 3-inch phone
display.

Yes, you can build distrbuted applications with DHTML--****, I've been writing
ASP, DHTML, and XML technical articles and books for years now for VBPJ/VSM
and XML Magazine and Sybex. I'm fully aware of what these technologies can
do. And I'm also fully aware of their limitations for building robust usable
distributed applications.

Now, ask yourself why browsers became popular. It's because they let companies
deliver information to distributed users, but maintain (some) control of
that information in a centralized place. Browsers gave developers a platform
for writing distributed applications. But that platform wasn't good enough,
so DHTML was grafted on top of HTML to provide a minimum acceptable level
of interface interactivity. And it's cool! I loved DHTML, because it gave
me, as a developer, capabilities that weren't available before. But that
hasn't blinded me to the fact that it's an extremely awkward development
environment.

I'm glad you brought up the point about the DHTML IDE. Ask yourself why Microsoft,
which has been in the forefront of DHTML since its inception, has *not* provided
a truly robust DHTML IDE. And then step out of your current development situation
and ask yourself honestly, what would it take to improve distributed application
development? What would I (meaning you) really like to have in a development
environment for delivering robust distributed applications. And then go look
at .NET again. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised--even in this first
release.

Finally, I'm perfectly aware that DHTML is still the most viable option--today.
But that situation isn't going to last long. Go play a game of pool at Yahoo
and ask yourself if you could write that application using DHTML.

Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate your feedback, and I hope I've tempted
you to peer into the future, at least a little.

Russell Jones
Sr. Web Development Editor,
DevX.com

Dustin Steele

12-20-2001, 05:08 PM

Russell,

Thanks for the reply, I do appreciate the passion you have for your opinion.
And I can certainly respect that you have a different philosophy.

Aren't all web applications distributed in their very nature? The web is
after all a network of users, distributed across the globe. The fact that
my point of view is from a web development perspective seems to me to be
rather relevant to discussing distributed applications. What about shopping
on the Internet? Are e-business platforms considered distributed apps? The
web is not just about information delivery.

In thinking globally, you might recognize that not everyone has a broadband
connection, even in a corporate environment. Asia and Europe do not have
broadband connections as readily available as in the Americas. The 20M download
you refer to is, in my opinion, unacceptable even with broadband. Why should
I have to have additional client-side downloads, when the server can process
the same information and deliver in a format that I'm already capable of
viewing? I would agree that .NET promises to deliver this capability. However,
doesn't ASP (or any other server-side scripting platform) combined with HTML/DHTML
and/or XML/XSL do the same?

My point with the roll-overs is misconstrued. I was merely pointing out that
the efficiency issue you eluded to in your article, is not valid. Java is
far slower in implementing many simple interface elements that are critical
to developing an application than DHTML is. Flash on the other hand is more
suitable from an efficiency standpoint.

You pointed out that, you were "targeting applications; and the typical corporate
application is not now, nor is it likely to ever be delivered on a 2 or 3-inch
phone display." I would agree that it is not likely to be the 2 or 3-inch
display, however it is likely that my applications will be available to me
from multiple devices that are capable of interpreting and displaying the
necessary components. Likewise, I'll be able to interact with each of those
devices. So how does my web browser go away? Take an enterprise portal, for
example. All of my applications are accessible via the portal (and my browser),
and additionally provide me access to the same applications on my portable
devices as well.

That is what Microsoft is doing with .NET and that is why the browser is
not dead.

I'm glad that you agree that DHTML is capable of building a distributed application.
You also noted that it is not good for robust useful applications. I'd agree
with robust, however useful is left to the interpretation of the end user.
You reference Yahoo!'s Pool, not exactly a useful distributed application--in
my opinion.

Microsoft has yet to provide an extremely good web development IDE of any
kind, Interdev does the job, but barely. The .NET platform combined with
Visual Studio.NET is the first step in the right direction. At least there
are now some reusable libraries in place.

Thanks again for the reply. I do appreciate your point of view and can see
where you are coming from. I felt that there were misconceptions in your
article and appreciate your willingness to clarify.

Thanks,
Dustin

Phil Weber

12-20-2001, 06:46 PM

> So, if I am not using IE 5 and/or Windows on the Web,
> I am just playing around on the Web?

Mark: Where did I say "playing around?" I said that you won't be able to
make full use of the Web unless you use the products and platforms that are
de facto standards. Do you disagree that a significant number of Web sites
are optimized for Windows/IE?
---
Phil Weber

Aaron

12-20-2001, 07:08 PM

Hello all.

I'm dismayed by the gross lack of understanding for the purpose of "DHTML"
in the first place.

HTML is a document language. CSS, DOM, and Javascript sit on top of this
extremely simple document layer to provide enhancements to the document.
A nested list can become an expanding collapsing tree. A heading can have
a cool typeface and a better background. That is all standardized DHTML is
at this point, and in that simple existence, it will continue to thrive and
even grow.

W3C-compliant browsers have become the norm instead of the exception (mac
ie5+, window ie6 [alright, almost in ie5+], mozilla, opera 6, lynx [yes,
it is quite xhtml-compliant], and k-meleon). And in that environment, DHTML
can expose more elements of documents to enhancement and degrade perfectly.
This will give web authors much more flexibility to do whatever they want
at that enhancement level, and again, it seems that DHTML will grow more
ubiquitous.

I agree that the extended capabilities that MS had added to Explorer 5.5+
especailly are impressive, and I myself have built some damned fun things
with xmlhttp and behaviors. But when it comes right down to it, these are
all a hack on top of html because HTML is still a simple document language.

For doing what the author wants to -- build rich distributed apps, DHTML
is not the answer. never has been. i personally think that the world is still
waiting for the answer. But that doesn't mean that DHTML is dead.

Keep an eye out, I think with atleast one major browser available for every
platform that is standards-compliant, i think you'll see a drasatic in increase
in DHTML use on the web in the future.

-aaron

Dave

12-20-2001, 10:17 PM

"Peder Bennedsen" <pederb@dgi.dk> wrote:
>
>Our users are about 10.000 voluntary sports-leaders. We provide access to
>knowledge-base, administrative facilities and so on. We know from national
>statistics that up to 90% of all users runs Windows with IE 5.0+ or at least
>can upgrade easily.
>
>Life is full of choices. We were forced to go for a cheap, widely accepted
>and fairly bug-free standard with a minimum of support. So we dropped Netscape
>like so many others.

Peder, with all due respect - and to go slightly OT - here's my problem with
this part of your reply: MS is fairly bug-free?????

Our shop is 100% MS on the desktop with over 80 W2K servers along with Exchange
for our email servers. While I do understand what you really mean to say
here - MS is (unfortunately for some?) the de-facto standard in many platforms,
I really can;t believe anyone with experience in the varied platforms out
there can really state that MS puts out a fairly bug-free product.

(1) IMHO I'd think more production sysops would demand NEVER installing a
MS product until SP2.

(2) When will users learn that the price to for the MS style of scripting
interoperability is the exposure of way too many security holes... all it
took was one user to preview Goner.scr two weeks ago to bring our Exchange
servers to a screeching halt.

(3) MS has one of the poorest reputations for bloated, buggy and unsecured
code of any software maker.

(4) Have you heard about the latest XP patch that MS admits leaves ALL Win98/WinME/WinXP
machines vulnerable? Objective observers are actually saying that this is
the WORST hole ever seen in a Windows product and MS is suggesting EVERYONE
install this patch IMMEDIATELY.

Alex Russell

12-20-2001, 10:35 PM

Please take my opinion as biased (I'm working on a toolkit for web application
front-ends):

I can't honestly agree that DHTML is dead as an application interface tool.
In fact, I think we're just getting to the point where it can be competitive.
Our users just got their standards compliant browsers the other day, and
we're still working on tools that work with them.

I might posit that instead of DHTML being dead, perhaps our perception of
DHTML has to change before we can start using it in powerful ways. Having
coded interfaces in everything from C++/QT to J2ME, I can honestly say that
DHTML has a long way to go, but part of that is our inability to coalecse
on a set of toolkits. In the "regular" programming world, we expect to get
our hands dirty when writing interface code, we expect that it'll run on
a Mac or a PC or a Linux box, but not necessarialy all of them all the time
(unless we're talking swing, but that's another ball of wax). No such expectation
is made for DHTML. When it breaks on browser XYZ we curse the gods and swear
that we'll never be so foolish again.

Why are we so willing to not understand that platforms have given capabilities
when it comes to DHTML but yet we live with these limitations and think nothing
of it when developing compiled code?

Perhaps our biggest collective dissapointment is that the promise of the
web doesn't extend to DHTML, or at least is hasn't in the past. We were sold
on the premise that it'll work absolutely everywhere, that it'll be the end
of proprietary interface building. We can get our content to everyone. And
we swallowed it hook line an sinker. Yeah, we may have blown our goodwill
on crappy browsers (NN4 springs, nay plops, to mind), but that's not a reason
that the platform should be ignored now that we have the tools to make it
work. The DOM can make this happen, I beleive that we just need to build
the tools correctly. Interfaces have to behave consistently and without delay.
They must feel right to users familiar to the polish of an operating system.
No, we don't have it yet. Yes, we're getting there. Give it a chance.

Just my $0.02

Alex Russell
http://www.netWindows.org

Alex Russell

12-20-2001, 11:11 PM

Dustin, I couldn't agree more. It's about the right tools.

There are a couple of others you might want to mention as well:

netWindows -- DOM only, cross platform. Web apps only need apply. It's a
class hierarchy and infrastructure for building compelling GUIs on the client
end without endless page refreshes. Supports an exensible widget model and
ships with a default set of widgets. http://netWindows.org (disclaimer, I
wrote this one)

Brainjar -- Mike Hall's excellent library. http://www.brainjar.com

GenLib -- the "neuraltype" stuff here is very neat. http://redk.net/microbians/genlib/genlib/

HTH.

Alex
alex@netWindows.org

"Dustin Steele" <dustin.steele@dowcorning.com> wrote:

> Here's a few more DHTML reusable libraries that provide high-quality
>development tools.
>DynAPI - a cross browser API that allows development in essentially every
>browser in use. (http://dynapi.sourceforge.net/dynapi/)
>DOMLib - a DHTML library for use with DOM compatible browsers. (http://www.dynamic-core.net/tools/domlib/index.htm)
> The article Is DHTML Dead, is useless.
>
>Waiting for an apology,
>Dustin Steele

Peder Bennedsen

12-21-2001, 03:39 AM

Good point... havent we heard this before..?

We have about 60 Windows servers and 300 workstations in one installation.
All are patched to the latest SRs. We use a Raptor firewall and virus-protection
from Trend Micro.
On a daily basis we experience hundreds of hack-attacks and hundreds of email-bases
viruses, but this defence is so effective that all servers and all workstations
runs 99,999% rock-solid day and night.
It is true that new MS-vulnerabilities are discovered often, but believe
me: We do never experience any of the problems that so many talk about.

"Dave" <dd@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>"Peder Bennedsen" <pederb@dgi.dk> wrote:
>>
>>Our users are about 10.000 voluntary sports-leaders. We provide access
to
>>knowledge-base, administrative facilities and so on. We know from national
>>statistics that up to 90% of all users runs Windows with IE 5.0+ or at
least
>>can upgrade easily.
>>
>>Life is full of choices. We were forced to go for a cheap, widely accepted
>>and fairly bug-free standard with a minimum of support. So we dropped Netscape
>>like so many others.
>
>
>Peder, with all due respect - and to go slightly OT - here's my problem
with
>this part of your reply: MS is fairly bug-free?????
>
>Our shop is 100% MS on the desktop with over 80 W2K servers along with Exchange
>for our email servers. While I do understand what you really mean to say
>here - MS is (unfortunately for some?) the de-facto standard in many platforms,
>I really can;t believe anyone with experience in the varied platforms out
>there can really state that MS puts out a fairly bug-free product.
>
>(1) IMHO I'd think more production sysops would demand NEVER installing
a
>MS product until SP2.
>
>(2) When will users learn that the price to for the MS style of scripting
>interoperability is the exposure of way too many security holes... all it
>took was one user to preview Goner.scr two weeks ago to bring our Exchange
>servers to a screeching halt.
>
>(3) MS has one of the poorest reputations for bloated, buggy and unsecured
>code of any software maker.
>
>(4) Have you heard about the latest XP patch that MS admits leaves ALL Win98/WinME/WinXP
>machines vulnerable? Objective observers are actually saying that this is
>the WORST hole ever seen in a Windows product and MS is suggesting EVERYONE
>install this patch IMMEDIATELY.
>

MarkN

12-21-2001, 06:04 AM

"Phil Weber" <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote:
> > So, if I am not using IE 5 and/or Windows on the Web,
> > I am just playing around on the Web?
>
>Mark: Where did I say "playing around?" I said that you won't be able to
>make full use of the Web unless you use the products and platforms that
are
>de facto standards. Do you disagree that a significant number of Web sites
>are optimized for Windows/IE?
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>
You didn't say those words. I was exagerating a little. I would agree that
is true for HTML web sites. The problem is the Web is not just about browsers
and Windows. I would say once we realize that browsers are for browsing
and build distributed apps properly we will be making full use of the Web.

Mark

Just wondering

12-21-2001, 07:24 AM

"Aaron Sevivas" <a@a.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think any technology is dead until people stop using it. There
is
>a product team in the company I'm currently working with that just put together
>a really sweet looking sight using some DHTML objects. This reminds me of
>the "Is Foxpro dead?" discussion..

Depends what your definition of dead is. If it stinks and doesn't move on
its own it might be dead. Necrophilia - Is the corpse dead?

sidesh0w

12-21-2001, 11:02 AM

Phil:

With all due respect, I appreciate your position regarding Micro$oft's top-dog
position in the browser wars, but I think you've confused market share with
standards-compliance. Wishing that the W3C would go away simply change the
fact that IE fails to adopt standards-compliant code in favor of a proprietary,
exclusivist DOM. .NET may or may not be the way to go in coming years, but
I think it's basically the same song in a different key--MS is just using
its dominant position in the market to its own advantage, setting its own
"standard" at the exclusion of the real ones.

Just two cents--dassit.

- ethan

"Phil Weber" <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote:
>Mark: Where did I say "playing around?" I said that you won't be able to
>make full use of the Web unless you use the products and platforms that
are
>de facto standards. Do you disagree that a significant number of Web sites
>are optimized for Windows/IE?
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>

Dave

12-21-2001, 01:44 PM

"Peder Bennedsen" <pederb@dgi.dk> wrote:

>We have about 60 Windows servers and 300 workstations in one installation.
>All are patched to the latest SRs. We use a Raptor firewall and virus-protection
>from Trend Micro.
>On a daily basis we experience hundreds of hack-attacks and hundreds of
email-bases
>viruses, but this defence is so effective that all servers and all workstations
>runs 99,999% rock-solid day and night.

Sames here but Coder hit us hard. The problem here wasn't that we were under-protected,
but that virtually ALL virus protection was unaware of Coder for up to 24
hours after it began hitting people. The various virus protection suppliers
reacted very quickly and competantly but the key word here is 'react'. Nobody
can really 'proact' to a specific virus. :-( *SIGH* I guess it was just our
turn.

>It is true that new MS-vulnerabilities are discovered often, but believe
>me: We do never experience any of the problems that so many talk about.

One last thing here, slightly OT. The worst kind of security holes IMHO are
the ones that MS knows about but hasn't yet announced or fixed. The one I
mentioned yesterday was known for _three_ months by MS. (Or so it was reported
by CNET.... by my calculations that would basically mean that MS knew about
this a month before the commercial release of XP!) One can really only protect
themself from things that one knows of. In a case like this, I have little
confidence in an absolute like your last sentance. Yes, you may 'never experience'
problems SO FAR...(!).

On a more on target note, this is my thrid post in response to this article.
My original post really may not have been as clear as I should have made
it. I never intended to comment on the Java vrs. .NET war that is beginning
to erupt. Nor did I intend to say anything anything critical of .NET or MS
specifically. Rather, I originally addressed the question the editor asked:
is DHTML dead? Once more.... (1) absolutely NOT, (2) .NET - and Java for
that matter - actually compliment (D)HTML in browsers and (3) if you are
talking .NET and the WinForm method of implementation - which is IMHO _very_
cool then jeez people, why do you insist on such a sensational mislabelling
like "is DHTML dead"? It really isn't relevant in this context.

Michael Marschall

12-24-2001, 12:14 AM

"And: If you produce plates, would you produce the round ones, that have a
market or would you produce the odd-shaped that people will not buy because
they cant buy a dishwasher for them in the future..."

The only problem with this is that all the round plates are produced by one
company and if you try to produce a better round plate that company will
price gouge you out of the market or will just buy your ***.

Michael Marschall

"Peder Bennedsen" <pederb@dgi.dk> wrote:
>
>Nice point about the dishwasher. But try to look at it the other way around:
>
>You can buy any dishwasher because plates are standardized! If 90% of all
>dishwashers supports round plates and the rest supports rectangular plates,
>triangular plates (or maybe only cups), what would you do?
>I would buy a dishwasher that cleans my round plates. I agree that it is
>not at all nice if there is only one manufacturer, but as long as the machine
>does the job fast, cheap and reliable, I will stick to it.
>
>And: If you produce plates, would you produce the round ones, that have
a
>market or would you produce the odd-shaped that people will not buy because
>they cant buy a dishwasher for them in the future...
>
>I know this argumentation somewhat "bites itself in the tail" (is that how
>you say it in english?) - but isnt this realy what it is all about...?
>
>
>"Robert Pappas" <rpappas@sound.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>>>So you have IT staff to support Unix, Linux, OS/2, Macs, etc. even though
>>>you only have Windows desktops? That seems like an awful waste of
>>>resources.
>>
>>Nope. It's because we follow open standards that we don't have support
>costs
>>for new technologies. Anyone can plug a Mac into our network and browse
>>our Intranet and run our Intranet applications. Zero support cost. We
>have
>>some people in marketing who use Macs, and we just bought a company that
>>runs a lot of Linux. No problems.
>>
>>It's 10 years of Microsoft Windows that have I.T. departments across the
>>world scared of support costs. It doesn't have to be this way.
>>
>>When I buy a new dishwasher, I don't worry about it being compatible with
>>my refrigerator, or my blender. I just plug it in an use it. So I'm free
>>to buy a dishwasher from a company that might only have 5% market share,
>>and I'm still not worried. THAT is capitalism at it's best, and that is
>>good for everyone. :)
>>
>>Desktop technology must and will move in this direction. You put a device
>>on their desktop, or in their hand, and they just plug it into the Internet
>>and they can do whatever they want.
>>
>>This "Winner take ALL" game that Microsoft (and SUN!) is playing is ultimately
>>bad for all of us, and more and more people are waking up to that fact
every
>>day.
>>
>>Robert Pappas
>>rpappas@sound.net
>

Colin Saxton

12-28-2001, 07:56 AM

"RB" <cj434@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>.Net doesn't have the server side tools that Java has access to. And the
>>only ones it does only run on windows and you have to access most through
>>COM.
>
>That's overstated. Check out Mono, the Open Source C# implementation - it
>plans to implement _everything_ in the System.* namespace.
>
>As to the "server side tools" - if one IS on Windows (and a lot of people
>are), I think you've got it wrong. Anyone who has done any work on Windows
>server platforms at all has to concede the incredible richness of advanced
>APIs - Telephony, MSMQ, ADSI (a cool abstraction of LDAP), ADO/ADOX/OleDb
>(far more powerful than JDBC), CryptoAPI, transactional components, the
System.XML.*
>objects - I'm sorry, but even J2E is pretty much blown away.
>

The incredible richness of APIs that you mention are all implemented with
Java and also work on a number of other OS which you can't with .NET

J2EE is not blown away by .NET at all...I have looked at both systems...and
I can remember the age old VIPER technology before it became COM+ with all
the bugs and problems it brought along with it...what do you mean by advanced
APIs...I have done alot of work with MS server side tools and nothing could
be further from thr truth...

Connector and JDBC APIs are far better structured than ADO or OLEDB and can
you please tell me what ADO gives over JDBC???

The JAVA APIs outstrip MS COM APIS hands down...they are structured better
and more thought has gone into them...(Crypto APIs are available on 99.9%
of platforms so you can strike that off the list no matter what language
you are using)...

Transactional components are far easier to control under J2EE than on COM+
I know since I have used both extensively through VB/VC++ and Java J2EE.
XML support under Java is outstanding...

.NET should be named Java RIPOFF that only works on MS platforms...First
Microsoft spent a decade slagging off the java platform and then they go
and create a new be all and end all called .NET which basically rips off
the Java platform (I mean System.* and even C# should really be called Java...its
nearly exactly the same...)

.NET is nowhere near competing with J2EE at the moment...name me a COMPLETED
project that is using .NET which competes with the numerious completed, tried
and tested systems that are out there being used in enterprise networks using
J2EE...

Alot of people use Microsoft Windows because it was the only one loaded onto
personnel computers at the time...and MS also wrote monopoly clauses into
all of the deals that they did with distributors making it almost impossible
for other OS's to compete...This is about to change with Linux now available
to users for the first time...

The problem they have is that they have a monopoly with HOME Computers not
SERVERS, most of the REAL work today is done on UNIX systems not Win 2000...

Joe Monroe

12-28-2001, 01:26 PM

"Colin Saxton" <ccs@efacs.com> wrote in message
news:3c2c6bf1$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> Alot of people use Microsoft Windows because it was the only one loaded
onto
> personnel computers at the time...and MS also wrote monopoly clauses into
> all of the deals that they did with distributors making it almost
impossible
> for other OS's to compete...This is about to change with Linux now
available
> to users for the first time...

I doubt it. The reasons people use Windows at home are because it is what
they use at work so they can work at home, and there is much more software
available for it. Go to CompUSA or any other store and compare the number
of Windows programs availabe to the number of Linux ones.

> The problem they have is that they have a monopoly with HOME Computers not
> SERVERS, most of the REAL work today is done on UNIX systems not Win
2000...

Do you have a cite for this? And how do you define "REAL work" anyway?

MarkN

12-31-2001, 06:21 AM

"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>"Colin Saxton" <ccs@efacs.com> wrote in message
>news:3c2c6bf1$1@147.208.176.211...
>>
>> Alot of people use Microsoft Windows because it was the only one loaded
>onto
>> personnel computers at the time...and MS also wrote monopoly clauses into
>> all of the deals that they did with distributors making it almost
>impossible
>> for other OS's to compete...This is about to change with Linux now
>available
>> to users for the first time...
>
>I doubt it. The reasons people use Windows at home are because it is what
>they use at work so they can work at home, and there is much more software
>available for it. Go to CompUSA or any other store and compare the number
>of Windows programs availabe to the number of Linux ones.
>

I can understand your doubt. But don't under estimate the power of free
or cheap. How did IE crush Netscape? Free.

The main reason people use Windows at home is because it comes installed.
Those who work at home in addition to the 'office' a lot of the times get
PCs from work. Other than those who use it at home for work, most use it
for games or the internet. If a person buys a PC to play games, they've
wasted at least $1000. So what is left is surfing the internet. How many
pieces of software do you need for that?

The reason you see no Linux software for sale at CompUSA, etc. besides Linux
distributions and maybe StarOffice, is because it is free on the internet.
Other than games, which by the way is coming along, you can get all the
same kind of software on Linux, minus the virus capabilities.

If Linux came installed on the majority of PCs for sale at Stores like CompUSA
MS would quickly disappear. With the pricing and requirements of XP I've
heard more and more grumblings and searching for alternatives.

Mark

Joe Monroe

12-31-2001, 01:04 PM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c304a40$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> I can understand your doubt. But don't under estimate the power of free
> or cheap. How did IE crush Netscape? Free.

Uh, Netscape was/is free. IE became a better product because Netscape
stayed on v4 for years.

> The main reason people use Windows at home is because it comes installed.
> Those who work at home in addition to the 'office' a lot of the times get
> PCs from work. Other than those who use it at home for work, most use it
> for games or the internet. If a person buys a PC to play games, they've
> wasted at least $1000. So what is left is surfing the internet. How many
> pieces of software do you need for that?

You haven't priced PCs lately, have you? You can get a great machine for
much less than $1000. And saying someone who buys a PC to play games has
wasted his money is like saying someone who bought an X-Box has wasted his
money. If you use it, it's not a waste.

> The reason you see no Linux software for sale at CompUSA, etc. besides
Linux
> distributions and maybe StarOffice, is because it is free on the internet.
> Other than games, which by the way is coming along, you can get all the
> same kind of software on Linux, minus the virus capabilities.

Again, how much of it is compatible with what people use at work? And you
also forget that the majority of users are not technically savvy and don't
want to learn a new OS. They know how to use Windows and they want to use
the same programs at home they use at work.

> If Linux came installed on the majority of PCs for sale at Stores like
CompUSA
> MS would quickly disappear. With the pricing and requirements of XP I've
> heard more and more grumblings and searching for alternatives.

I agree, people are not happy about XP, but most of the Windows purchases
are with new PCs, so the prce is rolled into the cost of the PC. Most home
users never upgarde their OS. The activation crap is a bigger issue,
though. But Linux will never be installed on the majority of new PCs
because people want windows. Companies don't want to change their
environments, and home users want what they are already familiar with.

MarkN

12-31-2001, 01:06 PM

"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:3c304a40$1@147.208.176.211...
>>
>> I can understand your doubt. But don't under estimate the power of free
>> or cheap. How did IE crush Netscape? Free.
>
>Uh, Netscape was/is free. IE became a better product because Netscape
>stayed on v4 for years.

Uh, no it wasn't free at first. By the time it became free, it was too late.
We had this conversation on the vb.discussion thread.

>
>> The main reason people use Windows at home is because it comes installed.
>> Those who work at home in addition to the 'office' a lot of the times
get
>> PCs from work. Other than those who use it at home for work, most use
it
>> for games or the internet. If a person buys a PC to play games, they've
>> wasted at least $1000. So what is left is surfing the internet. How
many
>> pieces of software do you need for that?
>
>You haven't priced PCs lately, have you? You can get a great machine for
>much less than $1000. And saying someone who buys a PC to play games has
>wasted his money is like saying someone who bought an X-Box has wasted his
>money. If you use it, it's not a waste.

I price them every weekend from where most people buy them. Most machines
are around $1000 w/ monitor. It is a waste because consoles are much better
game machines for a much less price and it is much easier to get them to
work. PC's need virus software, maintenance, etc. So it is not saying the
same thing. It is like buying a bus to drive yourself to church every week.

>
>> The reason you see no Linux software for sale at CompUSA, etc. besides
>Linux
>> distributions and maybe StarOffice, is because it is free on the internet.
>> Other than games, which by the way is coming along, you can get all the
>> same kind of software on Linux, minus the virus capabilities.
>
>Again, how much of it is compatible with what people use at work? And you
>also forget that the majority of users are not technically savvy and don't
>want to learn a new OS. They know how to use Windows and they want to use
>the same programs at home they use at work.

If they use Office, it is compatible. What is there to learn? Everytime
MS comes out with a new version they have to learn. Every week they have
to be retrained. ("Now how do I cut and paste again?"). They don't really
know how to use Windows. They know enough to function.

>
>> If Linux came installed on the majority of PCs for sale at Stores like
>CompUSA
>> MS would quickly disappear. With the pricing and requirements of XP
I've
>> heard more and more grumblings and searching for alternatives.
>
>I agree, people are not happy about XP, but most of the Windows purchases
>are with new PCs, so the prce is rolled into the cost of the PC. Most home
>users never upgarde their OS. The activation crap is a bigger issue,
>though. But Linux will never be installed on the majority of new PCs
>because people want windows. Companies don't want to change their
>environments, and home users want what they are already familiar with.
>

I wouldn't say never. No, people don't want Windows. They want cheap and
easy and currently that seems to be MS. Once people have to pay for the
software they use they will begin to look elsewhere.

MarkN

12-31-2001, 02:52 PM

"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:3c30a910$1@147.208.176.211...
>>
>> Uh, no it wasn't free at first. By the time it became free, it was too
>late.
>> We had this conversation on the vb.discussion thread.
>
>And the fact that IE is a better product has absolutely nothing to do with
>it, of course.

It is now. Or it is it? It definitely has more features.

>
>> I price them every weekend from where most people buy them. Most machines
>> are around $1000 w/ monitor. It is a waste because consoles are much
>better
>> game machines for a much less price and it is much easier to get them
to
>> work. PC's need virus software, maintenance, etc. So it is not saying
>the
>> same thing. It is like buying a bus to drive yourself to church every
>week.
>
>For a top of the line PC, maybe. But there are very nice systems available
>with monitors for much less than $1000. You're also twisting my point.
I
>never said people buy PCs only to play games, that is one of the things
they
>use them for. A typical family buys a PC so mom and dad can do some work
>out home, the kids can play games, everyone can send e-mail and browse the
>web, etc. Windows allows them to do all this. Get a PC with Linux, and
>now all you can do is get on the Net. Mom and Dad can't do any work, there
>are very few games for the kids, etc.

Not much less. It is a nice round number. If it is, it has a dumbed down
processor.

You twisted my point. Mom and Dad can get their work done. You really should
explore worlds other than MS. There is alot out there. A family typically
buys a PC to play games, surf the .Net (and all the net stuff), type term
papers and maybe keep their finances.

>
>And if someone does buy a PC just to play games, as long as they feel like
>they go good value for their money, so what? If someone is happy driving
>their bus to church, more power to them. It's not a waste of money if they
>are satisfied with it.
>
>And depending on the types of games you like, PCs are sometimes the better
>platform. No question they're not as good for action/arcade style games,
>but for strategy, sports simulations, on-line play, there are better games
>for PCs than the consoles.
>
>> If they use Office, it is compatible. What is there to learn? Everytime
>> MS comes out with a new version they have to learn. Every week they have
>> to be retrained. ("Now how do I cut and paste again?"). They don't really
>> know how to use Windows. They know enough to function.
>
><sarcasm>You're right, Word 2000 was just so much different than Word 97
or
>Word 95, it took people weeks to relearn everything. And Excel 2000 was
a
>revolutionary step up from Excel 97. </sarcams>
>
>> I wouldn't say never. No, people don't want Windows. They want cheap
and
>> easy and currently that seems to be MS. Once people have to pay for the
>> software they use they will begin to look elsewhere.
>
>Believe it or not, most non-techies are quite happy with Windows. They
>don't know enough to care about the flaws that the techies point out. They
>are quite happy surfing the net and whatever else. They don't care about
>the nuts and bolts of the OS. They can do what they want to do easily
>enough.
>
>Shifting the subject a little, what advantages does Linux really provide
for
>the typical home user over Windows? Again, these are people who just want
>to do some work from home, surf the Net, play some games, maybe print some
>pictures from a digital camera, etc. They hardly ever add new hardware,
>they don't care about the nuts and bolts of the OS, are ignorant of security
>holes (for better or worse), etc. So what does Linux provide that Windows
>doesn't?
>
>The only advantages I've seen given are it's free, more stable, and fewer
>security holes. Most home users get Windows with the PC so they don't care
>about cost, find Windows is stable enough, and are ignorant of the security
>flaws so they don't care.
>

That is my point. When they find out what it really costs (pay per use)
to use MS products they won't mind switching or being switched. It is not
that they are happy Windows. They are just happy to have it already installed.

Mark

Joe Monroe

12-31-2001, 03:01 PM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c30a910$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> Uh, no it wasn't free at first. By the time it became free, it was too
late.
> We had this conversation on the vb.discussion thread.

And the fact that IE is a better product has absolutely nothing to do with
it, of course.

> I price them every weekend from where most people buy them. Most machines
> are around $1000 w/ monitor. It is a waste because consoles are much
better
> game machines for a much less price and it is much easier to get them to
> work. PC's need virus software, maintenance, etc. So it is not saying
the
> same thing. It is like buying a bus to drive yourself to church every
week.

For a top of the line PC, maybe. But there are very nice systems available
with monitors for much less than $1000. You're also twisting my point. I
never said people buy PCs only to play games, that is one of the things they
use them for. A typical family buys a PC so mom and dad can do some work
out home, the kids can play games, everyone can send e-mail and browse the
web, etc. Windows allows them to do all this. Get a PC with Linux, and
now all you can do is get on the Net. Mom and Dad can't do any work, there
are very few games for the kids, etc.

And if someone does buy a PC just to play games, as long as they feel like
they go good value for their money, so what? If someone is happy driving
their bus to church, more power to them. It's not a waste of money if they
are satisfied with it.

And depending on the types of games you like, PCs are sometimes the better
platform. No question they're not as good for action/arcade style games,
but for strategy, sports simulations, on-line play, there are better games
for PCs than the consoles.

> If they use Office, it is compatible. What is there to learn? Everytime
> MS comes out with a new version they have to learn. Every week they have
> to be retrained. ("Now how do I cut and paste again?"). They don't really
> know how to use Windows. They know enough to function.

<sarcasm>You're right, Word 2000 was just so much different than Word 97 or
Word 95, it took people weeks to relearn everything. And Excel 2000 was a
revolutionary step up from Excel 97. </sarcams>

> I wouldn't say never. No, people don't want Windows. They want cheap and
> easy and currently that seems to be MS. Once people have to pay for the
> software they use they will begin to look elsewhere.

Believe it or not, most non-techies are quite happy with Windows. They
don't know enough to care about the flaws that the techies point out. They
are quite happy surfing the net and whatever else. They don't care about
the nuts and bolts of the OS. They can do what they want to do easily
enough.

Shifting the subject a little, what advantages does Linux really provide for
the typical home user over Windows? Again, these are people who just want
to do some work from home, surf the Net, play some games, maybe print some
pictures from a digital camera, etc. They hardly ever add new hardware,
they don't care about the nuts and bolts of the OS, are ignorant of security
holes (for better or worse), etc. So what does Linux provide that Windows
doesn't?

The only advantages I've seen given are it's free, more stable, and fewer
security holes. Most home users get Windows with the PC so they don't care
about cost, find Windows is stable enough, and are ignorant of the security
flaws so they don't care.

Joe Monroe

12-31-2001, 08:28 PM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c30c20d$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> That is my point. When they find out what it really costs (pay per use)
> to use MS products they won't mind switching or being switched. It is not
> that they are happy Windows. They are just happy to have it already
installed.

And given the choice of buying a PC with the OS that they already know how
to use, or a slightly cheaper one with an OS they don't know how to use and
offers no other advantages, most users will go for the one with the OS they
know.

MarkN

01-02-2002, 05:47 AM

"Joe Monroe" <xxx@xxx.com> wrote:
>"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:3c30c20d$1@147.208.176.211...
>>
>> That is my point. When they find out what it really costs (pay per use)
>> to use MS products they won't mind switching or being switched. It is
not
>> that they are happy Windows. They are just happy to have it already
>installed.
>
>And given the choice of buying a PC with the OS that they already know how
>to use, or a slightly cheaper one with an OS they don't know how to use
and
>offers no other advantages, most users will go for the one with the OS they
>know.
>

I'm not really totally disagreeing with that. Mostly just the 'never' statements.
And most people really don't 'know' Windows. One of the biggest industries
in the technology world is training - for MS products. And other OS's offer
many other advantages beside slightly cheaper. The fact that Apple still
exists is testiment to the fact price isn't always the most important thing.
The reason the majority of people, who buy PCs off the shelf, buy a Window's
PC is because that is what comes installed. They know the Window's name
but not Windows.

Just don't shut or blinder your eyes to the fact that there are other options
out there and either slowly or quickly things can change and are changing.

Do I use Windows mostly? Yes. Can I do everything on Linux tomorrow that
I do on Windows today? Yes, just not with all the same tools (which in some
cases is a good thing).

Joe Monroe

01-02-2002, 11:56 AM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c32e55e$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> I'm not really totally disagreeing with that. Mostly just the 'never'
statements.
> And most people really don't 'know' Windows. One of the biggest
industries
> in the technology world is training - for MS products. And other OS's
offer
> many other advantages beside slightly cheaper. The fact that Apple still
> exists is testiment to the fact price isn't always the most important
thing.
> The reason the majority of people, who buy PCs off the shelf, buy a
Window's
> PC is because that is what comes installed. They know the Window's name
> but not Windows.

Now we're going in circles. Why is Windows installed on most PCs? Because
that's what people want. They might not "know" windows, but they know how
to use it, and they know they they can run the programs they want on it.

The reason there is so much training for MS products is because that's what
most companies use. If they were still using WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3,
there would be a lot of training for those products.

> Just don't shut or blinder your eyes to the fact that there are other
options
> out there and either slowly or quickly things can change and are changing.

I never said they couldn't change. I just said that if people are going to
use a new OS, it needs to provide them with something they aren't getting
with Windows. And you never said what Linux provides the average user that
Windows doesn't.

> Do I use Windows mostly? Yes. Can I do everything on Linux tomorrow that
> I do on Windows today? Yes, just not with all the same tools (which in
some
> cases is a good thing).

And most average users don't want to learn new tools, and they won't until
they are forced to.

MarkN

01-02-2002, 12:17 PM

>Now we're going in circles. Why is Windows installed on most PCs? Because
>that's what people want. They might not "know" windows, but they know how
>to use it, and they know they they can run the programs they want on it.

No, because MS has made it next to impossible for anything else to be installed.
Just because people buy Windows, doesn't mean they buy it because they want
it. Most consumers are fickle and gullible. Most people who use PCs know
very little about PCs and Windows. And they really don't 'know' how to use
it. They know the right sequence of clicks.

>
>The reason there is so much training for MS products is because that's what
>most companies use. If they were still using WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3,
>there would be a lot of training for those products.

What I was saying is that most people need training with any computer product.
And with any little change they need to be retrained. So knowing Windows,
Office and any other such product is useless to most when an update arrives.

>
>> Just don't shut or blinder your eyes to the fact that there are other
>options
>> out there and either slowly or quickly things can change and are changing.
>
>I never said they couldn't change. I just said that if people are going
to
>use a new OS, it needs to provide them with something they aren't getting
>with Windows. And you never said what Linux provides the average user that
>Windows doesn't.

Security, ownership, choice/freedom, simplicity(after initial install), lower
pricepoint for all software, reliability (i.e. What OS does Tivo use?).

>
>> Do I use Windows mostly? Yes. Can I do everything on Linux tomorrow
that
>> I do on Windows today? Yes, just not with all the same tools (which in
>some
>> cases is a good thing).
>
>And most average users don't want to learn new tools, and they won't until
>they are forced to.
>

Well they are with XP and .Net.

Joe Monroe

01-02-2002, 02:17 PM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message >

> No, because MS has made it next to impossible for anything else to be
installed.
> Just because people buy Windows, doesn't mean they buy it because they
want
> it. Most consumers are fickle and gullible. Most people who use PCs know
> very little about PCs and Windows. And they really don't 'know' how to
use
> it. They know the right sequence of clicks.

This is my point exactly. If someone was buying a new PC and you said "do
you want Windows or Linux?" most people will respond with "what the heck is
Linux?" They know how to "use" windows so they can run programs. And they
know the programs they need and want to use run on Windows. If CompUSA,
Dell, Gateway and whoever else started selling PCs with Linux on them, very
few people would buy them.

> What I was saying is that most people need training with any computer
product.
> And with any little change they need to be retrained. So knowing
Windows,
> Office and any other such product is useless to most when an update
arrives.

And again, do you really think that Word 2000 was that much different than
Word 97? People do not need retraining for an upgrade like that.

> Security, ownership, choice/freedom, simplicity(after initial install),
lower
> pricepoint for all software, reliability (i.e. What OS does Tivo use?).

Security - most people don't know and don't care
Ownership - they own Windows
choice/freedom - choice and freedom from what?
simplicity - Windows is just as simple to use as any of the Linux GUIs
pricepoint - yes, software is cheaper, but there is very litle of it
available and barely any of the mainstream apps
reliability - Windows is plenty reliable for casual users. These people
aren't running servers.

> Well they are with XP and .Net.

No they're not. You can set XP to look and act just like Win9x. Although I
didn't realize casual users were going to start programming in .Net now.

MarkN

01-02-2002, 03:13 PM

"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message >
>
>> No, because MS has made it next to impossible for anything else to be
>installed.
>> Just because people buy Windows, doesn't mean they buy it because they
>want
>> it. Most consumers are fickle and gullible. Most people who use PCs
know
>> very little about PCs and Windows. And they really don't 'know' how to
>use
>> it. They know the right sequence of clicks.
>
>This is my point exactly. If someone was buying a new PC and you said "do
>you want Windows or Linux?" most people will respond with "what the heck
is
>Linux?" They know how to "use" windows so they can run programs. And they
>know the programs they need and want to use run on Windows. If CompUSA,
>Dell, Gateway and whoever else started selling PCs with Linux on them, very
>few people would buy them.

Yes, if they were asked. But they were not/are not asked if they want(ed)
Windows. They currently don't know why it is better/worse. I think you
are taking the knowledge and ability level of most users for granted. It
is typically very low.

>
>> What I was saying is that most people need training with any computer
>product.
>> And with any little change they need to be retrained. So knowing
>Windows,
>> Office and any other such product is useless to most when an update
>arrives.
>
>And again, do you really think that Word 2000 was that much different than
>Word 97? People do not need retraining for an upgrade like that.

You would think not, but they do. Again, I think you are taking the knowledge
and ability level of most users for granted.
>
>> Security, ownership, choice/freedom, simplicity(after initial install),
>lower
>> pricepoint for all software, reliability (i.e. What OS does Tivo use?).
>

>Security - most people don't know and don't care
People are tired of Outlook bugs. Linux is/able to be much more secure with
directories, etc.

>Ownership - they own Windows
Not for long. MS wants to rent everything. That is the only way to stop
software piracy.

>choice/freedom - choice and freedom from what?
OS Vendor, Desktop, tools, etc.

>simplicity - Windows is just as simple to use as any of the Linux GUIs
Yes and no. Windows has more bells and whistles than most people need or
can figure out how to use.

>pricepoint - yes, software is cheaper, but there is very litle of it
>available and barely any of the mainstream apps
Look again. Everything most users want to do is available and cheaper.

>reliability - Windows is plenty reliable for casual users. These people
>aren't running servers.
I've heard it has improved with XP. But so has the potential for viruses,
etc.

>
>> Well they are with XP and .Net.
>
>No they're not.
Try telling the average user that.

>You can set XP to look and act just like Win9x.
That requires knowing something new - training.

> Although I
>didn't realize casual users were going to start programming in .Net now.
>

They do with VBA\Access. Why not .Net for Apps?

Joe Monroe

01-02-2002, 04:40 PM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c3369de$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> Yes, if they were asked. But they were not/are not asked if they want(ed)
> Windows. They currently don't know why it is better/worse. I think you
> are taking the knowledge and ability level of most users for granted. It
> is typically very low.

That's my point - these people don't know much. But they do know that they
need Windows to run the programs they need to run. If they bought a PC and
the vendor put Linux on it, they wouldn't know what the heck to do with it
because they've never seen Linux before. They "know" windows. They don't
care why it's better or worse than Linux, they just know that to install the
software they want to use, they need Windows.

> You would think not, but they do. Again, I think you are taking the
knowledge
> and ability level of most users for granted.

Please, explain the differences in the basic features of Word that are
different between 97 and 2000. The fancy new features that people might
need training for aren't used by 99% of the users. I know these people are
idiots, and as such, their use of Word is limited to creating documents and
changing fonts and point sizes, and maybe a bulleted list. And that has not
change at all. You are assuming that these users - who you agree don't
know much - use all the advanced features of these applications, and they
don't.

I think we both agree that typical users are essentially idiots. Where we
differ is that you think since they don't know anything, they will be happy
with whatever they are given, while I think that since they don't know
anything, they want what they are familiar with.

> >Security - most people don't know and don't care
> People are tired of Outlook bugs. Linux is/able to be much more secure
with
> directories, etc.

And again, most typical users don't have a clue about any of this, so they
don't care.

> >Ownership - they own Windows
> Not for long. MS wants to rent everything. That is the only way to stop
> software piracy.

Maybe they will, but that is not the case now.

> >choice/freedom - choice and freedom from what?
> OS Vendor, Desktop, tools, etc.

And you can use any tools with Windows.

> >simplicity - Windows is just as simple to use as any of the Linux GUIs
> Yes and no. Windows has more bells and whistles than most people need or
> can figure out how to use.

So they don't use them. But the basics of using windows - go to the start
menu or double-click on icon on the desktop - are very simple.

> >pricepoint - yes, software is cheaper, but there is very litle of it
> >available and barely any of the mainstream apps
> Look again. Everything most users want to do is available and cheaper.

Really? Is there Word or Powerpoint for Linux? I know there are programs
that use compatible files, but that's not the same thing. Are the users who
you think can't even handle the difference between Word 97 and 2000 going to
want to use a completely different program? And how about the latest games?
They're not available for Linux.

> >You can set XP to look and act just like Win9x.
> That requires knowing something new - training.

No it doesn't.

> They do with VBA\Access. Why not .Net for Apps?

So you're saying people who are too dumb to handle the difference between
Word 97 and 2000 are programming in VBA? I really don't think so.

Colin Saxton

01-03-2002, 04:02 AM

It has nothing to do with DHTML though??

(Just joking!)...

Anyway when it comes to development I can build a PC for next to nothing
drop Linux onto it...get a free development IDE (Forte)...The latest Java
APIs for nothing...C++ compiler with Java compiler (Latest GNU)...its great...All
I pay for is the PC and once I have written my software I can take the byte
code and run it on windows (WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO BUY IT).

If I want to develop with .NET with the latest IDEs and so forth then you
are talking big bucks for development...I agree you could pay the same for
java development and IDEs if your stupid but the environment I have setup
cost me nothing and I can develop faster with Java than any other language...because
of its structure...code base and user/development base...

I also can get free J2EE (JBOSS) server free web server (Linux inbuilt kernel
web server or Apache...) and the free OS which is more stable and secure
than windows...

For development you can't beat Unix/GNU/Java...I can get it all free and
write anything you want with this setup...

MarkN

01-03-2002, 07:34 AM

I still think you are wrong in your presupposition that people want Office
and Windows. They don't. It is what is for sale when they go to Best Buy
or whatever. You are right in that that is what they will continue to buy.
Until something changes or causes them to change. And change is in the
works. MS wants to rent their OS and other software and they have the right
to. But when people see they can do the same the thing with other free or
cheaper software and they actually have to start paying for the software
they use from MS (not get a copy) their mindset will eventually change.
The younger generation, who is(has) growing up with computers and likes downloading
for free, have an easier time with PC/OS/computer languages (unlike the current
generation). They soon will be in the position of making choices and they
aren't so inclined to default to MS products. It just won't happen overnight.

Why does Windows/Intel have such a lead over Apple? Because it was cheaper.
Definitely not easier and still not. Not because it had more software.
Apple had more software. And Windows/Intel is not, for comparable machines,
cheaper than Mac anymore.

Joe Monroe

01-03-2002, 10:32 AM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c344fc4$1@147.208.176.211...
>
> I still think you are wrong in your presupposition that people want Office
> and Windows. They don't. It is what is for sale when they go to Best Buy
> or whatever.

No, they want Windows and Office because that's what they use at work and
that's what they know how to use. You said yourself that these people are
too dumb to figure out the differences between Word 97 and 2000, do you
really think they want to learn something completely different?

You are right in that that is what they will continue to buy.
> Until something changes or causes them to change. And change is in the
> works. MS wants to rent their OS and other software and they have the
right
> to. But when people see they can do the same the thing with other free or
> cheaper software and they actually have to start paying for the software
> they use from MS (not get a copy) their mindset will eventually change.
> The younger generation, who is(has) growing up with computers and likes
downloading
> for free, have an easier time with PC/OS/computer languages (unlike the
current
> generation). They soon will be in the position of making choices and they
> aren't so inclined to default to MS products. It just won't happen
overnight.

I agree that as the younger generation starts making the purchases, they
will shift away from Windows, especially if MS does go to a rental plan.
But you get into a chicken-egg thing where people won't want to switch until
there is more software available for other OSes, and the developers won't
start making more software for the other OSes until more people use them.

> Why does Windows/Intel have such a lead over Apple? Because it was
cheaper.
> Definitely not easier and still not. Not because it had more software.
> Apple had more software. And Windows/Intel is not, for comparable
machines,
> cheaper than Mac anymore.

No, it's because that's what the corporatations bought into, and that's what
people became familiar with and learned how to use, and they could work at
home if they were compatible with the office.

MarkN

01-03-2002, 12:02 PM

"Joe Monroe" <yeahright@yeahright.com> wrote:
>"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:3c344fc4$1@147.208.176.211...
>>
>> I still think you are wrong in your presupposition that people want Office
>> and Windows. They don't. It is what is for sale when they go to Best
Buy
>> or whatever.
>
>No, they want Windows and Office because that's what they use at work and
>that's what they know how to use. You said yourself that these people are
>too dumb to figure out the differences between Word 97 and 2000, do you
>really think they want to learn something completely different?

Still doesn't mean they WANT it. How many people buy a PC and Office so
they can work at home too? Few. Most are supplied by the employer.

>
>You are right in that that is what they will continue to buy.
>> Until something changes or causes them to change. And change is in the
>> works. MS wants to rent their OS and other software and they have the
>right
>> to. But when people see they can do the same the thing with other free
or
>> cheaper software and they actually have to start paying for the software
>> they use from MS (not get a copy) their mindset will eventually change.
>> The younger generation, who is(has) growing up with computers and likes
>downloading
>> for free, have an easier time with PC/OS/computer languages (unlike the
>current
>> generation). They soon will be in the position of making choices and
they
>> aren't so inclined to default to MS products. It just won't happen
>overnight.
>
>I agree that as the younger generation starts making the purchases, they
>will shift away from Windows, especially if MS does go to a rental plan.
>But you get into a chicken-egg thing where people won't want to switch until
>there is more software available for other OSes, and the developers won't
>start making more software for the other OSes until more people use them.
>

You keep missing the fact that this software exists already. Just not MS
products. And that it is developed by more people than 1 corporation.

>> Why does Windows/Intel have such a lead over Apple? Because it was
>cheaper.
>> Definitely not easier and still not. Not because it had more software.
>> Apple had more software. And Windows/Intel is not, for comparable
>machines,
>> cheaper than Mac anymore.
>
>No, it's because that's what the corporatations bought into,

Because it was cheaper.

>and that's what
>people became familiar with and learned how to use, and they could work
at
>home if they were compatible with the office.
>

People don't typically buy PCs to work at home in addition to the Office.

MarkN

01-03-2002, 01:21 PM

>I give up. If people didn't want Windows, they would buy Macs or insall
>Linux or some other OS. But they buy PCs with Windows and continue to use
>Windows because that's what they want to use.

If they had the equal opportunity to they might. People just want a personal
computer. And since, as far as they know, Model T's only come in black,
that is the only color and car they get.

>
>> You keep missing the fact that this software exists already. Just not
MS
>> products. And that it is developed by more people than 1 corporation.
>
>Show me where I can get the Linux version of all the latest games.

Now you are switching back to games. What Windows PC runs ALL the latest
games? You need the right grahics card, etc. Not having many games available
is a selling point to businesses.

>
>> >> Why does Windows/Intel have such a lead over Apple? Because it was
>> >cheaper.
>> >> Definitely not easier and still not. Not because it had more
>software.
>> >> Apple had more software. And Windows/Intel is not, for comparable
>> >machines,
>> >> cheaper than Mac anymore.
>> >
>> >No, it's because that's what the corporatations bought into,
>>
>> Because it was cheaper.
>
>And better for business applications, and it still is.

Again, not true and never was. People just think that is true because that
is what they are told. For some things, a dumb terminal is better.

>
>> People don't typically buy PCs to work at home in addition to the Office.
>
>For the last time, that's one of the things they use them for, not the only
>thing. If someone has a choice between 2 PCs, and all things are equal
>except that one will let them do some work from home and the other one
>won't, they'll take the one they can do some work on.
>

Again, they don't know they have a choice and things aren't equal.

Joe Monroe

01-03-2002, 02:12 PM

"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c348eab$1@147.208.176.211...
> >
> >No, they want Windows and Office because that's what they use at work and
> >that's what they know how to use. You said yourself that these people
are
> >too dumb to figure out the differences between Word 97 and 2000, do you
> >really think they want to learn something completely different?
>
> Still doesn't mean they WANT it. How many people buy a PC and Office so
> they can work at home too? Few. Most are supplied by the employer.

I give up. If people didn't want Windows, they would buy Macs or insall
Linux or some other OS. But they buy PCs with Windows and continue to use
Windows because that's what they want to use.

> You keep missing the fact that this software exists already. Just not MS
> products. And that it is developed by more people than 1 corporation.

Show me where I can get the Linux version of all the latest games.

> >> Why does Windows/Intel have such a lead over Apple? Because it was
> >cheaper.
> >> Definitely not easier and still not. Not because it had more
software.
> >> Apple had more software. And Windows/Intel is not, for comparable
> >machines,
> >> cheaper than Mac anymore.
> >
> >No, it's because that's what the corporatations bought into,
>
> Because it was cheaper.

And better for business applications, and it still is.

> People don't typically buy PCs to work at home in addition to the Office.

For the last time, that's one of the things they use them for, not the only
thing. If someone has a choice between 2 PCs, and all things are equal
except that one will let them do some work from home and the other one
won't, they'll take the one they can do some work on.

Christopher Thomas McGinlay

01-04-2002, 10:34 AM

>
> No, they want Windows and Office because that's what they use at work and
> that's what they know how to use. You said yourself that these people are
> too dumb to figure out the differences between Word 97 and 2000, do you
> really think they want to learn something completely different?
>

At the school where I work, people use both MS Office and Star Office.
We bought some reconditioned laptops and shoved SO on at no cost. I'm
not sure that many of them know the difference? I can see no reason to
pay a lot for MS Office when SO is available at virtually no cost,
doesn't crash and uses XML open file format. I am also delighted with
its M$ export facilities!

Chris

Jasdeep

01-08-2002, 11:43 PM

First of all, i think DHTML is here to stay. And the second thing is that
this discussion like everything else, went after 2 responses from DHML vs
.NET to Windows vs Linux. I propose lets form a body which reviews all the
operating systems, using people who have use Linux, Unix, Windows and Mac
(like me :)) and let them tell which one is best suited for your needs. Because
obviously everything have their uses otherwise they wouldn't be around.
I still prefer Linux emacs to code in C++ and Java but when i have to work
on ASP and HTML, i still prefer Visual Studio and UltraDev( Notepad is very
useful too). Here i go again, the point is lets get back to the discussion
at hand
DHTML vs .NET

.NET has a great marketing team, has got a lot of beta users and does
almost everything (although we have to use COM for features not implemented
in .NET) but DHTML is here to stay. I think you should look at a new DHTML
Grid and Tree Component (http://www.drdev.com) which will tell you what DHTML
can do for you. Also we should look at the audience before deciding on what
we want to build. If we are building an Intranet APplication for a corporation
which has predominantly Windows Computers and IE5+ standard browser, use
the rich IE5 interface to give the best user experience possible. But if
we want to make a site for www.osreview.org ( the organiisation i suggested
:)), we want it to be accessible to all so reach should be preffered over
user experience. If everybody where we wantto install has .NET client, make
it for .NET. Its ultimately money game so where you can give the best possible
expeience at the cheapest cost, your sponsor is gonna favor that.

My free cents on DHTML vs .NET
Jasdeep