.NET 3.0

[Michael Gautier]

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-946395.html

It would seem that there will be a new Visual Studio version/update every
year at least until 2004.


Does this mean that Visual Studio .NET will be more responsive to changing
technology than the pre-.NET tools or does it simply mean that .NET is easier
to update than the old tools?

[Michael Gautier]

Even if you are wrong, it sounds right to me.

That seems to also be a current weakness of .NET in that Visual Studio is
the only product that is built (at least somewhat) on the .NET Framework.
It probably for the best though since I would rather have .NET applications
that are stable, robust and performant rather than early. Continued failures
in security and quality would ruin .NET.

Some would disagree with the Apple evaluation. Since they have a smaller
user base, they don't necessarily have to have a much a wide ranging execution
as Microsoft. One thing I like about OSX is the small amount of applications,
since it seems like a bad idea to install so much. Who is to say that Microsoft
may not be doing the same thing in that 5,000 developers wouldn't be writing
alot of applications, but rather you need 5,000 more (more on top of that)
to redo Office, SQL Server and the few programs that matter to Microsoft's
bottom line in .NET code.

I know that they seemed to have had a tall order in making Longhorn into
a version of Windows that would allow you to do all the things in the Fortune
article (find anything in the computer from anywhere, etc). My impression
was that they would rewrite Windows, perhaps they can achieve this with Xml
and .NET or maybe they won't do that and simply move much of the Windows
.NET Server code base down to the desktop level. The latter options would
seem to be the more time effective option.

[patch]

Michael Gautier wrote in message <3d407db9$1@10.1.10.29>...
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1001-946395.html
>
>It would seem that there will be a new Visual Studio version/update every
>year at least until 2004.
>
>
>Does this mean that Visual Studio .NET will be more responsive to changing
>technology than the pre-.NET tools or does it simply mean that .NET is
easier
>to update than the old tools?


I think considering the article and the cut in developement time of longhorn
(which I REALLY find quite significant) Bill made the conclusion that for
his new product(range) to work he needs application developers.. something
which indeed helped windows to become what it is today: a sh*tload of
compatible applications...

reading up on all this and the .net documentation I think MS is going to do
something which nearly cost apple's head: make such a change in the os that
backwards-compatability is low-priority/non existent.. problem with apple
was (and Bill even warned Steve(jobs) about this in a personal letter!!)
that they changed the os before all the major software/application builders
were ready for it.. (I know i'm simplifying things here but i'm NOT going to
quote a 200+ pages buisness analysis of apple..)
So what MS does now is what it does best (i think) : it literaly swamps the
information stream with tools, toys, tutorials, templates and what not so it
can be at least 80% sure there's going to be support for it's new flagship
when (before) they roll it out... VERY smart i'd say..

just my 2cts

patch

[patch]

just reading that last article you posted.. it seems indeed they (ms) put an
extra effort in the availabillity of your data vs security/pricvacy issues..
you'd think they MUST've learned something from their former security-hole
problems and especially the users reactions to those..
It doesnt really surprise me though that the first real product to be build
on the framework is exactly the product to make more products with, what was
the phrase again? eeh..
"you don't give hungry man fish to eat, you give hungry man stick and teach
him to fish"

the Apple evaluation is not open for discussion neither opinionated;
<simplified>
somewhere* along the road AppleMacintosh nearly dissapeared(eeh.. wend
bancrupt..?) as a company, Gates was one of the first to acknowledge that
and saw the need for a "stronger" competitor. He went through quite some
length to convince Steve Jobs of this and warned for some of the more
drastic approaches Steve had towards "his" operating system. now my memory
gets a bit hazy but I belive the downfall of Apple was prohibited/saved
because they managed to throw Jobs out/disable him for awhile and
concentrated on getting more software/application support for their os. This
was around the period that the only two decent office applications for mac
were MS word and MS excel..
</simplified>
*I've got this book from this management-analyst who describes this whole
apple-episode and uses it to illustrate the importance of (daring to) making
drastic strategy/course changes in uncertain times.. My sis borrowed it so
when I get to her i'll post the name/isbn somewhere in the next days..

Considering this and Gate's remark in that speech you posted ("Microsoft is
still focused on the thing that it loves and knows well, and that is
building software platforms") I think it's approach will be contrary to the
"small amount of applications" theory..
from an end-user point of view; what's fun about windows? the amount of
nifty little toys and tools which sit in your task tray.. the skinnabillity
of all those toys.. I know of people who have at least 10 icons in their
tray which they'll show me full of pride when they find out i'm a geek...
I think Gates/MS acknowledged that a long time ago.. but learned that you
cannot force them unto people.. remember office assistant? everybody hated
it.. but I see those same people downloading all kinds of other desktop
pets...

I think longhorn ends up being a sortof unix-gui hybrid: completely "open"
architecture with a basic gui build in and whole bucket full of reusable
components.. I also think the next generation of end-users is ready for
that. Funny though.. the same Ideas I have about gaming -future
and -developement apply here; the constructing of a product is going to be
part of the USE of a product. (making your own macro/document toolbar in
word was/is allready part of that)
on the other hand I also see the product dissapearing from the focus and
the message getting to be more important.. My last big online project
involved a community tool which would open possabilities for unified
messaging: the user would compose a message and the system would decide on
which media the receipient would recieve this message:
sms/email/fax/snailmail.. this based on message size, priority, available
receipients adresses.. thus taking away two steps in the users approach to
sending information..

but i'm drifting (AGAIN!) sorry..
its just so nice living in this time and age...

patch

Michael Gautier wrote in message <3d409268$1@10.1.10.29>...
>
>Even if you are wrong, it sounds right to me.
>
>That seems to also be a current weakness of .NET in that Visual Studio is
>the only product that is built (at least somewhat) on the .NET Framework.
>It probably for the best though since I would rather have .NET applications
>that are stable, robust and performant rather than early. Continued
failures
>in security and quality would ruin .NET.
>
>Some would disagree with the Apple evaluation. Since they have a smaller
>user base, they don't necessarily have to have a much a wide ranging
execution
>as Microsoft. One thing I like about OSX is the small amount of
applications,
>since it seems like a bad idea to install so much. Who is to say that
Microsoft
>may not be doing the same thing in that 5,000 developers wouldn't be
writing
>alot of applications, but rather you need 5,000 more (more on top of that)
>to redo Office, SQL Server and the few programs that matter to Microsoft's
>bottom line in .NET code.
>
>I know that they seemed to have had a tall order in making Longhorn into
>a version of Windows that would allow you to do all the things in the
Fortune
>article (find anything in the computer from anywhere, etc). My impression
>was that they would rewrite Windows, perhaps they can achieve this with Xml
>and .NET or maybe they won't do that and simply move much of the Windows
>NET Server code base down to the desktop level. The latter options would
>seem to be the more time effective option.
>
>

[patch]

oops, for the others:
"that last article you posted" is ofcourse :
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/s...etstrategy.asp
somewhere at the end of the "careerbasedonmicrosoft" posts..

patch

[patch]

patch wrote in message <3d409e9b$1@10.1.10.29>...
[..]
>
>Considering this and Gate's remark in that speech Michael posted
("Microsoft is
>still focused on the thing that it loves and knows well, and that is
>building software platforms") I think it's approach will be contrary to the
>"small amount of applications" theory..
>from an end-user point of view; what's fun about windows? the amount of
>nifty little toys and tools which sit in your task tray.. the skinnabillity
>of all those toys.. I know of people who have at least 10 icons in their
>tray which they'll show me full of pride when they find out i'm a geek...




having said that, I just stumbled on this:
http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_id=134178
(seems I AM getting somewhere.. )

maybe this whole .net thing is indeed what this industry needs in terms of
developement-job availability... just like he (gates) states MS windows has
done in 1995.. I find that a very reasurring thought..

patch

[Michael Gautier]

"patch" <pretpet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think longhorn ends up being a sortof unix-gui hybrid: completely "open"
>architecture with a basic gui build in and whole bucket full of reusable
>components.. I also think the next generation of end-users is ready for
>that. Funny though.. the same Ideas I have about gaming -future
>and -developement apply here; the constructing of a product is going to
be
>part of the USE of a product. (making your own macro/document toolbar in
>word was/is allready part of that)

I think the building to use a product metaphor is an important evolution
of applications. I can just see the "next round of kids" having conflicts
with Web and Client/Server developers over this approach in much the same
way the "old kids" had conflicts with the Mainframe way of doing things.
This will be the generation of developers that uses Xml first and object
technologies as last resort.

[Michael Gautier]

"patch" <pretpet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>having said that, I just stumbled on this:
>http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_id=134178
>(seems I AM getting somewhere.. )
>
>maybe this whole .net thing is indeed what this industry needs in terms
of
>developement-job availability... just like he (gates) states MS windows
has
>done in 1995.. I find that a very reasurring thought..
>

I see it as a kind of business. As a developer, you have to market yourself
when going after certain opportunities (say design, enterprise development,
whatever). Some have marketed themselves on the J2EE set of technologies,
others went with C++ everything. I went with Microsoft, and if they fail
so do I for a while. I probably could get back in, but I have less than a
year in professional Java or anything else compared to others who spent their
years in Java, C++ or whatever. By contrast, I have close to two years with
.NET and around 4 for Microsoft development in general so if .NET wins, so
do I. A very reasurring thought indeed.



>patch
>
>

[patch]

I really think there's no "if" neither a "win"
in Gates speech he clearly suggests technologies and companie's will exist
alongside of each other floating on a common set of standarts, defined by
everything xml(soap, xslt and a whole list of these nifty ancronyms).. I
really think he means it and means to have healthy competition from
company's like oracle, IBM, sun etc etc..
He's just trying to build the best arena to have that competition in.. so it
gets to be a game on home-ground.. then in the end when he loses some of the
competitions he still got the revenue of all those people who came to look
at it in his stadium.. (does this make ANY sense? sure hope so.. )

and in the end these will ofcourse be the real winners: the end users and
programmers who get to build and use all these exciting new toys... looking
foreward to it..

and oh michael, I think you don't have to worry about the failing of
microsoft.. because if they fail the technologie or not: their marketing
apparatus has no such shortcommings.. I suspect these guys are even making a
nice profit from all that bad press MS got in the past years..

patch

ps. much thanx for the reply on uml..

Michael Gautier wrote in message <3d40c757$1@10.1.10.29>...
>
>"patch" <pretpet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>having said that, I just stumbled on this:
>>http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_id=134178
>>(seems I AM getting somewhere.. )
>>
>>maybe this whole .net thing is indeed what this industry needs in terms
>of
>>developement-job availability... just like he (gates) states MS windows
>has
>>done in 1995.. I find that a very reasurring thought..
>>
>
>I see it as a kind of business. As a developer, you have to market yourself
>when going after certain opportunities (say design, enterprise development,
>whatever). Some have marketed themselves on the J2EE set of technologies,
>others went with C++ everything. I went with Microsoft, and if they fail
>so do I for a while. I probably could get back in, but I have less than a
>year in professional Java or anything else compared to others who spent
their
>years in Java, C++ or whatever. By contrast, I have close to two years with
>NET and around 4 for Microsoft development in general so if .NET wins, so
>do I. A very reasurring thought indeed.
>
>
>
>>patch
>>
>>
>

[Michael Gautier]

"patch" <pretpet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I really think there's no "if" neither a "win"
>in Gates speech he clearly suggests technologies and companie's will exist
>alongside of each other floating on a common set of standarts, defined by
>everything xml(soap, xslt and a whole list of these nifty ancronyms).. I
>really think he means it and means to have healthy competition from
>company's like oracle, IBM, sun etc etc..
>He's just trying to build the best arena to have that competition in.. so
it
>gets to be a game on home-ground.. then in the end when he loses some of
the
>competitions he still got the revenue of all those people who came to look
>at it in his stadium.. (does this make ANY sense? sure hope so.. )
>

Makes sense but I think if .NET becomes the pervasive means of playing then
those that can wield the .NET hammer the best have the potential to make
out real good (professionally and economically). If Java does the deal better,
best and more ubiquitous, then you have a recipe for lower opportunity for
those that invested in the other way over those that stayed the course. In
any event, I am confident in Microsoft's leadership even though the consumer/business
buy-in is always a wildcard.

>and in the end these will ofcourse be the real winners: the end users and
>programmers who get to build and use all these exciting new toys... looking
>foreward to it..
>
>and oh michael, I think you don't have to worry about the failing of
>microsoft.. because if they fail the technologie or not: their marketing
>apparatus has no such shortcommings.. I suspect these guys are even making
a
>nice profit from all that bad press MS got in the past years..
>

The underdog overcomes lower expectations for survival?

>patch
>
>ps. much thanx for the reply on uml..
>

Cool.

[Guy]

My take on this is, it is easier to update .NET and hence more responsiveness
will result. A lot of effort went into the design of the .NET framework
and I'm sure they addressed modularity and expandability in this new framework.
Microsoft has really shown some maturity in the latest round of releases.
They should be able to update .NET a LOT faster now, since they don't have
to maintain (at least not to the same degree) a host of dissimilar products
(i.e VB, C++, etc). Good design there. And since MS seems to be paying attention
to keeping things simple, I think these releases will not be very intrusive.
Good stuff.

Simplicity is good for me as a developer, although complexity does help to
keep a lot of yahoos out of the business. Hmmm.. perhaps this is not such
a good thing. An example is VB. It is a great tool but it allowed ever
history/english/[name some degree w/ no jobs here] to become an overnight
wannabe "IT professional".

Guy

[patch]

Michael Gautier wrote in message <3d40d9a1$1@10.1.10.29>...
>

[..snip..]
>any event, I am confident in Microsoft's leadership even though the
consumer/business
>buy-in is always a wildcard.
[..snip..]

speaking of which:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/11/technology/11NET.html

quit a bummer i'd say...
patch

[Michael Gautier]

"patch" <pretpet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Gautier wrote in message <3d40d9a1$1@10.1.10.29>...
>>
>
>[..snip..]
>>any event, I am confident in Microsoft's leadership even though the
>consumer/business
>>buy-in is always a wildcard.
>[..snip..]
>
>speaking of which:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/11/technology/11NET.html
>

Check this one out: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn...enterprise.xml



>quit a bummer i'd say...
>patch
>
>

[Michael Gautier]

I doubt any yahoos will be able to hang with version 1 of .NET. Version 3
is another matter altogether, especially if they abstract .NET with even
higher level components.

[patch]

>>[..snip..]
>>>any event, I am confident in Microsoft's leadership even though the
>>consumer/business
>>>buy-in is always a wildcard.
>>[..snip..]
>>
>>speaking of which:
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/11/technology/11NET.html
>>
>
>Check this one out:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn...enterprise.xml


okay, let me get this straight:

If I get my head round .net and c# within two years I'm ready when the new
MS.net bandwagon takes off start of 2004, providing they will hang to their
growth in the next year ..otherwise they might have to cut in r&d funds and
it takes another year orso before they get this whole .net/longhorn thing
moving.

Seeing the results/attention IBM's Websphere gets lately I indeed think
it's in MS's best interest to pull thisone off fast because if they DO have
to wait another two/three years they might lose a big marketshare to
websphere/java and more so because (i think) the power of .net relies on
having a wide acceptance/support.. (like with telephones: YOUR phone has no
value on itself, it's the amount of friends who have fones who add value to
it) PLUS it might give the java-comunity time to indeed get organized in a
more productive fashion...

so, still an open race: websphere/java vs ms.net, the outcome will be clear
in another two years...
****.. and here I was thinkin' I had my path layed out for me..


patch

ps: "Sun had a more than 100 percent decline in income" ****, that's GOT to
hurt...