Mark Hurd
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
http://abderaware.typepad.com/abderaware/2003/10/net_the_unfulfi.html#comments
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Zane is wavering!
Ice-Z
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Mark,
>http://abderaware.typepad.com/abderaware/2003/10/net_the_unfulfi.html#comments
>
That's no waver, that's an admission that in some respects I was wrong.
Zane
>http://abderaware.typepad.com/abderaware/2003/10/net_the_unfulfi.html#comments
>
That's no waver, that's an admission that in some respects I was wrong.
Zane
Kent
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
It's not unusual to be able to see the points of view of others after you
see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
I've felt this way for a long time and I'm not independant.
"Ice-Z" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>Mark,
>>http://abderaware.typepad.com/abderaware/2003/10/net_the_unfulfi.html#comments
>>
>
>That's no waver, that's an admission that in some respects I was wrong.
>
>Zane
>
>
see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
I've felt this way for a long time and I'm not independant.
"Ice-Z" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>Mark,
>>http://abderaware.typepad.com/abderaware/2003/10/net_the_unfulfi.html#comments
>>
>
>That's no waver, that's an admission that in some respects I was wrong.
>
>Zane
>
>
Zane Thomas
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Kent,
>It's not unusual to be able to see the points of view of others after you
>see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
That may be the case, but that's not the primary reason I'm seeing things
somewhat differently. MS did not, as I think I clearly wrote, live up to
the _promise_ they made to get the .net platform installed on existing
operating systems.
And, if you want to fully appreciate what I'm saying then you need to also
consider what I wrote about the operating system issue. I've been
thinking about that issue for quite a while. When I got around to writing
about it I subsequently came to see that there is an option to the
monolithic .net install, and I think I understand why MS didn't pursue it.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
>It's not unusual to be able to see the points of view of others after you
>see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
That may be the case, but that's not the primary reason I'm seeing things
somewhat differently. MS did not, as I think I clearly wrote, live up to
the _promise_ they made to get the .net platform installed on existing
operating systems.
And, if you want to fully appreciate what I'm saying then you need to also
consider what I wrote about the operating system issue. I've been
thinking about that issue for quite a while. When I got around to writing
about it I subsequently came to see that there is an option to the
monolithic .net install, and I think I understand why MS didn't pursue it.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
Frank Rizzo
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Zane Thomas wrote:
> Kent,
>
>
>>It's not unusual to be able to see the points of view of others after you
>>see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
>
>
> That may be the case, but that's not the primary reason I'm seeing things
> somewhat differently. MS did not, as I think I clearly wrote, live up to
> the _promise_ they made to get the .net platform installed on existing
> operating systems.
>
> And, if you want to fully appreciate what I'm saying then you need to also
> consider what I wrote about the operating system issue. I've been
> thinking about that issue for quite a while. When I got around to writing
> about it I subsequently came to see that there is an option to the
> monolithic .net install, and I think I understand why MS didn't pursue it.
Frankly, I don't understand what it is you want MS to do. You are
expecting a .NET CD in your mailbox. So the user installs it, and gee,
it does absolutely nothing. Fantastic, there go another 40mb of my hard
drive.
At least with AOL disks, there is a point to the installation: you'll be
able to use AOL, go on the net, etc...
As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
ship the framework. I don't know whether or not Office 2003 ships it.
But if nothing in Office 2003 requires the framework, why should it
burden users with unneeded crap. At least when they were distributing
IE with everything, the applications used the Web Control.
> Kent,
>
>
>>It's not unusual to be able to see the points of view of others after you
>>see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
>
>
> That may be the case, but that's not the primary reason I'm seeing things
> somewhat differently. MS did not, as I think I clearly wrote, live up to
> the _promise_ they made to get the .net platform installed on existing
> operating systems.
>
> And, if you want to fully appreciate what I'm saying then you need to also
> consider what I wrote about the operating system issue. I've been
> thinking about that issue for quite a while. When I got around to writing
> about it I subsequently came to see that there is an option to the
> monolithic .net install, and I think I understand why MS didn't pursue it.
Frankly, I don't understand what it is you want MS to do. You are
expecting a .NET CD in your mailbox. So the user installs it, and gee,
it does absolutely nothing. Fantastic, there go another 40mb of my hard
drive.
At least with AOL disks, there is a point to the installation: you'll be
able to use AOL, go on the net, etc...
As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
ship the framework. I don't know whether or not Office 2003 ships it.
But if nothing in Office 2003 requires the framework, why should it
burden users with unneeded crap. At least when they were distributing
IE with everything, the applications used the Web Control.
Zane Thomas
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Frank,
>Frankly, I don't understand what it is you want MS to do.
Apparently.
>You are expecting a .NET CD in your mailbox.
Yes, you understood that part.
>So the user installs it, and gee, it does absolutely nothing.
Says who? You don't think that with its billions MS couldn't put
something enticing on the CDs? Something for all the OS versions? How
about some nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort. Some games
written in .net. An upgraded IE that works with some nice .net web apps?
Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
>Fantastic, there go another 40mb of my hard
>drive.
Drive space is a minor consideration compared to just about all others.
>At least with AOL disks, there is a point to the installation: you'll be
>able to use AOL, go on the net, etc...
See above.
>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>ship the framework.
That's beside the point.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
>Frankly, I don't understand what it is you want MS to do.
Apparently.
>You are expecting a .NET CD in your mailbox.
Yes, you understood that part.
>So the user installs it, and gee, it does absolutely nothing.
Says who? You don't think that with its billions MS couldn't put
something enticing on the CDs? Something for all the OS versions? How
about some nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort. Some games
written in .net. An upgraded IE that works with some nice .net web apps?
Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
>Fantastic, there go another 40mb of my hard
>drive.
Drive space is a minor consideration compared to just about all others.
>At least with AOL disks, there is a point to the installation: you'll be
>able to use AOL, go on the net, etc...
See above.
>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>ship the framework.
That's beside the point.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
Frank Rizzo
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Zane Thomas wrote:
>>So the user installs it, and gee, it does absolutely nothing.
> Says who? You don't think that with its billions MS couldn't put
> something enticing on the CDs? Something for all the OS versions? How
> about some nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort. Some games
> written in .net. An upgraded IE that works with some nice .net web apps?
>
> Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
That's the dumbest business idea yet. Let's see, MS get zero assurance
that the CD even gets installed. Given the amount of CDs that people
get in the mail today, it is virtually an assurance that 999 out of a
1000 CDs end up in the trashcan.
For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
get nearly zero roi.
Besides, given that almost everyone (read power users & developers) that
downloads shareware generally has broadband connection, I don't think
20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the wanted shareware.
>>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>>ship the framework.
>
> That's beside the point.
That's really the only way for ms to assure that the framework gets
around, short of placing it in Critical updates.
>>So the user installs it, and gee, it does absolutely nothing.
> Says who? You don't think that with its billions MS couldn't put
> something enticing on the CDs? Something for all the OS versions? How
> about some nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort. Some games
> written in .net. An upgraded IE that works with some nice .net web apps?
>
> Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
That's the dumbest business idea yet. Let's see, MS get zero assurance
that the CD even gets installed. Given the amount of CDs that people
get in the mail today, it is virtually an assurance that 999 out of a
1000 CDs end up in the trashcan.
For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
get nearly zero roi.
Besides, given that almost everyone (read power users & developers) that
downloads shareware generally has broadband connection, I don't think
20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the wanted shareware.
>>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>>ship the framework.
>
> That's beside the point.
That's really the only way for ms to assure that the framework gets
around, short of placing it in Critical updates.
Zane Thomas
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Frank,
>> Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
>
>That's the dumbest business idea yet.
I'm sure you're the expert in that are.
>Given the amount of CDs that people
>get in the mail today, it is virtually an assurance that 999 out of a
>1000 CDs end up in the trashcan.
You have no data upon which to base that assertion.
>For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
>nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
>get nearly zero roi.
Well that was exactly my point Frank. MS is not distributing the .NET
framework widely, as several people there personally told me they would,
because it would get in the way of their monopoly on the desktop.
>Besides, given that almost everyone (read power users & developers) that
>downloads shareware generally has broadband connection ...
That might be true in Japan or South Korea, but it's not true here or in
many places in the rest of the world.
>I don't think 20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the
>wanted shareware.
Baloney. I've got broadband and even I looks sideways at a shareware
download that's over a half dozen mb or so.
>>>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>>>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>>>ship the framework.
>>
>> That's beside the point.
>
>That's really the only way for ms to assure that the framework gets
>around ...
Or so you say.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
>> Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
>
>That's the dumbest business idea yet.
I'm sure you're the expert in that are.
>Given the amount of CDs that people
>get in the mail today, it is virtually an assurance that 999 out of a
>1000 CDs end up in the trashcan.
You have no data upon which to base that assertion.
>For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
>nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
>get nearly zero roi.
Well that was exactly my point Frank. MS is not distributing the .NET
framework widely, as several people there personally told me they would,
because it would get in the way of their monopoly on the desktop.
>Besides, given that almost everyone (read power users & developers) that
>downloads shareware generally has broadband connection ...
That might be true in Japan or South Korea, but it's not true here or in
many places in the rest of the world.
>I don't think 20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the
>wanted shareware.
Baloney. I've got broadband and even I looks sideways at a shareware
download that's over a half dozen mb or so.
>>>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>>>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>>>ship the framework.
>>
>> That's beside the point.
>
>That's really the only way for ms to assure that the framework gets
>around ...
Or so you say.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
Mike Mitchell
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 02:18:25 +0930, "Mark Hurd"
<markhurd@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>http://abderaware.typepad.com/abderaware/2003/10/net_the_unfulfi.html#comments
Yeah, Ieft a message for him in case he's feeling lonely! Oh, wait a
minute! Karl replied, too.
MM
<markhurd@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>http://abderaware.typepad.com/abderaware/2003/10/net_the_unfulfi.html#comments
Yeah, Ieft a message for him in case he's feeling lonely! Oh, wait a
minute! Karl replied, too.
MM
Mike Mitchell
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
On 6 Oct 2003 21:31:01 -0400, "Ice-Z" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>That's no waver, that's an admission that in some respects I was wrong.
Hey, join the club!
MM
>That's no waver, that's an admission that in some respects I was wrong.
Hey, join the club!
MM
Mike Mitchell
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
On 6 Oct 2003 22:40:21 -0400, "Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote:
>It's not unusual to be able to see the points of view of others after you
>see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
Yeah, greed has a big mouth, doesn't it just?
MM
>It's not unusual to be able to see the points of view of others after you
>see your own ability to make a living is hindered.
Yeah, greed has a big mouth, doesn't it just?
MM
Mike Mitchell
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:47:53 GMT, zane@abderaware.com (Zane Thomas)
wrote:
>Says who? You don't think that with its billions MS couldn't put
>something enticing on the CDs? Something for all the OS versions? How
>about some nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort. Some games
>written in .net. An upgraded IE that works with some nice .net web apps?
Eh? And lose some of those billions! Come on! Being greedy means
keeping it all to oneself. Bill is going to change the habits of a
lifetime? Ya think?
MM
wrote:
>Says who? You don't think that with its billions MS couldn't put
>something enticing on the CDs? Something for all the OS versions? How
>about some nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort. Some games
>written in .net. An upgraded IE that works with some nice .net web apps?
Eh? And lose some of those billions! Come on! Being greedy means
keeping it all to oneself. Bill is going to change the habits of a
lifetime? Ya think?
MM
Mike Mitchell
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:05:39 -0700, Frank Rizzo <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Besides, given that almost everyone (read power users & developers) that
>downloads shareware generally has broadband connection, I don't think
>20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the wanted shareware.
It would deter me, even though I am still on dial-up. Yes, out here in
the freedom-loving British countryside where the air is fresh and the
girls are pretty we have telephone poles and no broadband. Thirty
miles from London, and no broadband. Heck, if I had broadband I'd
never be off the **** computer! No, it would deter me for ideological
reasons, in that I am simply against the Draconian measures that
Microsoft wishes to force upon me - whether WPA in XP, or requiring me
to contrinually upgrade what should be reasonably reliable software,
or kicking sand in my face as a traditional VB programmer. The 20 MB
download doesn't deter me per se; it's Microsoft that deters me, every
day.
MM
wrote:
>Besides, given that almost everyone (read power users & developers) that
>downloads shareware generally has broadband connection, I don't think
>20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the wanted shareware.
It would deter me, even though I am still on dial-up. Yes, out here in
the freedom-loving British countryside where the air is fresh and the
girls are pretty we have telephone poles and no broadband. Thirty
miles from London, and no broadband. Heck, if I had broadband I'd
never be off the **** computer! No, it would deter me for ideological
reasons, in that I am simply against the Draconian measures that
Microsoft wishes to force upon me - whether WPA in XP, or requiring me
to contrinually upgrade what should be reasonably reliable software,
or kicking sand in my face as a traditional VB programmer. The 20 MB
download doesn't deter me per se; it's Microsoft that deters me, every
day.
MM
Larry Serflaten
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
"Frank Rizzo" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
> For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
> nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
> get nearly zero roi.
I don't see it that way, unless, along with Longhorn they are developing
a newer version of the .Net framework. They don't have to 'spend all this
cash' to pick a few interesting titles of GotDotNet.com or a few other places.
Supplying that web Matrix thingy, with examples 'could be' hyped as the
new way to compose/show web documents (sans .PDF plugin)
Of course, if they are working on the next generation of the framework,
then people would be required to D/L that for the 'new and improved'
applications that require it. In that case, (which maybe factual, I don't
know for sure) I also think it would be a bad move for them to have
users install one version for a few months, only to install the next version
a few months later.
IMHO people are getting tired of playing musical software with MS's
patches and upgrades.... (either that, or they've quit playing and
decided to run with what they've got).
LFS
> For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
> nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
> get nearly zero roi.
I don't see it that way, unless, along with Longhorn they are developing
a newer version of the .Net framework. They don't have to 'spend all this
cash' to pick a few interesting titles of GotDotNet.com or a few other places.
Supplying that web Matrix thingy, with examples 'could be' hyped as the
new way to compose/show web documents (sans .PDF plugin)
Of course, if they are working on the next generation of the framework,
then people would be required to D/L that for the 'new and improved'
applications that require it. In that case, (which maybe factual, I don't
know for sure) I also think it would be a bad move for them to have
users install one version for a few months, only to install the next version
a few months later.
IMHO people are getting tired of playing musical software with MS's
patches and upgrades.... (either that, or they've quit playing and
decided to run with what they've got).
LFS
Frank Rizzo
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Zane Thomas wrote:
> Frank,
>
>
>>>Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
>>
>>That's the dumbest business idea yet.
> I'm sure you're the expert in that are.
That's witty. I'll write it down.
>>Given the amount of CDs that people
>>get in the mail today, it is virtually an assurance that 999 out of a
>>1000 CDs end up in the trashcan.
> You have no data upon which to base that assertion.
If the outhouse built on aol and msn CDs is any indication...
>>For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
>>nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
>>get nearly zero roi.
>
> Well that was exactly my point Frank. MS is not distributing the .NET
> framework widely, as several people there personally told me they would,
> because it would get in the way of their monopoly on the desktop.
How would it get in the way of their monopoly on the desktop?
>>I don't think 20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the
>>wanted shareware.
>
> Baloney. I've got broadband and even I looks sideways at a shareware
> download that's over a half dozen mb or so.
Given that it takes 5 minutes for large downloads like this and it is a
software that i really want, I wouldn't balk at it.
>>>>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>>>>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>>>>ship the framework.
>>>
>>>That's beside the point.
>>
>>That's really the only way for ms to assure that the framework gets
>>around ...
> Or so you say.
The browser wars say so.
> Frank,
>
>
>>>Etc...I'm sure I could come up with a number of good reasons.
>>
>>That's the dumbest business idea yet.
> I'm sure you're the expert in that are.
That's witty. I'll write it down.
>>Given the amount of CDs that people
>>get in the mail today, it is virtually an assurance that 999 out of a
>>1000 CDs end up in the trashcan.
> You have no data upon which to base that assertion.
If the outhouse built on aol and msn CDs is any indication...
>>For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
>>nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
>>get nearly zero roi.
>
> Well that was exactly my point Frank. MS is not distributing the .NET
> framework widely, as several people there personally told me they would,
> because it would get in the way of their monopoly on the desktop.
How would it get in the way of their monopoly on the desktop?
>>I don't think 20mb download is deterring anyone from downloading the
>>wanted shareware.
>
> Baloney. I've got broadband and even I looks sideways at a shareware
> download that's over a half dozen mb or so.
Given that it takes 5 minutes for large downloads like this and it is a
software that i really want, I wouldn't balk at it.
>>>>As far as major releases of their software go, they haven't really had
>>>>any. Office & Win XP came out before .NET, so obviously they couldn't
>>>>ship the framework.
>>>
>>>That's beside the point.
>>
>>That's really the only way for ms to assure that the framework gets
>>around ...
> Or so you say.
The browser wars say so.
Dave Rothgery
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
"Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3f82dd41@devx7.web.devx.com...
> "Frank Rizzo" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
> > nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
> > get nearly zero roi.
>
> I don't see it that way, unless, along with Longhorn they are developing
> a newer version of the .Net framework.
If all goes according to plan (and if what I've seen of The Plan is
accurate), the 2.1 framework (assuming Whidbey is 2.0, and Orcas is 2.1)
should ship at about the same time as Longhorn. Microsoft might be figuring
that the first widely-distributed version of the framework is going to be
the one that ships with Longhorn, no matter what else they do (short of
making the 1.1 or 2.0 framework a non-optional part of XP SP2), so there's
no reason to widely circulate earlier versions and create 'framework ****'.
Of course, if I were in charge, I'd still have included the current
framework in every CD MS shipped after VS.NET launched.
--
Dave Rothgery
drothgery@alum.wpi.edu
news:3f82dd41@devx7.web.devx.com...
> "Frank Rizzo" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
> > nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
> > get nearly zero roi.
>
> I don't see it that way, unless, along with Longhorn they are developing
> a newer version of the .Net framework.
If all goes according to plan (and if what I've seen of The Plan is
accurate), the 2.1 framework (assuming Whidbey is 2.0, and Orcas is 2.1)
should ship at about the same time as Longhorn. Microsoft might be figuring
that the first widely-distributed version of the framework is going to be
the one that ships with Longhorn, no matter what else they do (short of
making the 1.1 or 2.0 framework a non-optional part of XP SP2), so there's
no reason to widely circulate earlier versions and create 'framework ****'.
Of course, if I were in charge, I'd still have included the current
framework in every CD MS shipped after VS.NET launched.
--
Dave Rothgery
drothgery@alum.wpi.edu
Zane Thomas
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Frank,
You had/have the last word.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
You had/have the last word.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
Zane Thomas
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Dave,
>Microsoft might be figuring
>that the first widely-distributed version of the framework is going to be
>the one that ships with Longhorn
In 2005+, or so they now say. That means at least 2010 before most of the
user-base has moved on.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
>Microsoft might be figuring
>that the first widely-distributed version of the framework is going to be
>the one that ships with Longhorn
In 2005+, or so they now say. That means at least 2010 before most of the
user-base has moved on.
--
*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com
Kent
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Hi Zane,
zane@abderaware.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>And, if you want to fully appreciate what I'm saying then you need to also
>consider what I wrote about the operating system issue. I've been
>thinking about that issue for quite a while. When I got around to writing
>about it I subsequently came to see that there is an option to the
>monolithic .net install, and I think I understand why MS didn't pursue it.
Probably for the same reason .Net isn't platform independant. Doesn't it
bother you that it was designed to be independant of the hardware and OS
and yet it still requires windows? It's always bugged me!
Kent
zane@abderaware.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>And, if you want to fully appreciate what I'm saying then you need to also
>consider what I wrote about the operating system issue. I've been
>thinking about that issue for quite a while. When I got around to writing
>about it I subsequently came to see that there is an option to the
>monolithic .net install, and I think I understand why MS didn't pursue it.
Probably for the same reason .Net isn't platform independant. Doesn't it
bother you that it was designed to be independant of the hardware and OS
and yet it still requires windows? It's always bugged me!
Kent
Paul Clement
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
On 7 Oct 2003 21:41:38 -0400, "Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote:
¤
¤ Probably for the same reason .Net isn't platform independant. Doesn't it
¤ bother you that it was designed to be independant of the hardware and OS
¤ and yet it still requires windows? It's always bugged me!
Wow! Now that's an about face. I don't think we were aware that you actually had an interest in .NET
development.
Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
¤
¤ Probably for the same reason .Net isn't platform independant. Doesn't it
¤ bother you that it was designed to be independant of the hardware and OS
¤ and yet it still requires windows? It's always bugged me!
Wow! Now that's an about face. I don't think we were aware that you actually had an interest in .NET
development.
Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Ice-Z
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Larry,
Wow, you made sense!
--
Ice-Z
A Cold Day In ****
Wow, you made sense!
--
Ice-Z
A Cold Day In ****
Frank Rizzo
10-23-2003, 02:57 PM
Dave Rothgery wrote:
> "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3f82dd41@devx7.web.devx.com...
>
>>"Frank Rizzo" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
>>>nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
>>>get nearly zero roi.
>>
>>I don't see it that way, unless, along with Longhorn they are developing
>>a newer version of the .Net framework.
>
>
> If all goes according to plan (and if what I've seen of The Plan is
> accurate), the 2.1 framework (assuming Whidbey is 2.0, and Orcas is 2.1)
It would definetely have to be 3.0. Given that LongHorn is 3d hardware
accellerated, the entire System.Drawing and System.Windows.Forms
namespace would have to be rewritten to take advantage of the 3d
acceleration. That's a major change.
> should ship at about the same time as Longhorn. Microsoft might be figuring
> that the first widely-distributed version of the framework is going to be
> the one that ships with Longhorn, no matter what else they do (short of
> making the 1.1 or 2.0 framework a non-optional part of XP SP2), so there's
> no reason to widely circulate earlier versions and create 'framework ****'.
>
> Of course, if I were in charge, I'd still have included the current
> framework in every CD MS shipped after VS.NET launched.
>
>
> "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3f82dd41@devx7.web.devx.com...
>
>>"Frank Rizzo" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>For MS, this is a lose-lose. They spend all this cash developing some
>>>nice little freebie widget-progs of some sort and some games and they
>>>get nearly zero roi.
>>
>>I don't see it that way, unless, along with Longhorn they are developing
>>a newer version of the .Net framework.
>
>
> If all goes according to plan (and if what I've seen of The Plan is
> accurate), the 2.1 framework (assuming Whidbey is 2.0, and Orcas is 2.1)
It would definetely have to be 3.0. Given that LongHorn is 3d hardware
accellerated, the entire System.Drawing and System.Windows.Forms
namespace would have to be rewritten to take advantage of the 3d
acceleration. That's a major change.
> should ship at about the same time as Longhorn. Microsoft might be figuring
> that the first widely-distributed version of the framework is going to be
> the one that ships with Longhorn, no matter what else they do (short of
> making the 1.1 or 2.0 framework a non-optional part of XP SP2), so there's
> no reason to widely circulate earlier versions and create 'framework ****'.
>
> Of course, if I were in charge, I'd still have included the current
> framework in every CD MS shipped after VS.NET launched.
>
>
devx.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved