MS, AT&T, IBM - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 115

Thread: MS, AT&T, IBM

  1. #16
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    > Comments? (What if all the MS Mensan's had gotten
    > behind Java & J2EE? Where would computing be today?)


    Mark: I believe MS tried that with Visual J++, arguably the best Java
    implementation for Windows at the time, and Sun shot them down. I wonder if
    we would even have .NET today if Sun had been willing to compete, rather
    than go running to the courts?
    ---
    Phil Weber



  2. #17
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    > So you trust MS with your private info?

    Mark: What private info? All that's required to obtain a Passport is an
    e-mail address and password.
    ---
    Phil Weber



  3. #18
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    Phil,

    > I believe MS tried that with Visual J++, arguably the best Java
    > implementation for Windows at the time, and Sun shot them down. I wonder if
    > we would even have .NET today if Sun had been willing to compete, rather
    > than go running to the courts?


    I think we discussed this awhile ago... ;-) That whole situation could have
    gone much better for users...

    Hey, as long as I'm dreaming, what if MS & IBM had finished OS2 together?
    For the time it seemed to be a pretty good OS.

    -- Mark



  4. #19
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    Phil,

    > What private info? All that's required
    > to obtain a Passport is an
    > e-mail address and password.


    I was referring to the wallet. From
    http://www.passport.com/Consumer/default.asp

    "Store information in .NET Passport wallet
    that will help you make faster, safer online
    purchases at any .NET Passport express
    purchase site."

    -- Mark



  5. #20
    Paul Linville Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    I remember a talk given by Don Norman. (Worked at Apple, wrote the book "Things
    that make us smart" web site at http://www.jnd.org) He pointed some of
    the other technologies that where not as good but became the defacto standard.
    VHS vs Beta. QWERTY keyboard. DC vs AC power. The LP Record vs the A
    cylinder type media for recording sound.

    The last one is interesting. The record had one simple advantage, it was
    much easier to store. Could you imagine storing a couple dozen cylinders
    without some kind of silly contraption taking up alot of space? But just
    think how things might have been different if a solution had been found.
    Might harddrives, CD's ect look different and behave different today?

    I bring this up within this discussion because I believe Java succeded for
    two reasons. The minor reason is it's portability. Yea, that probably got
    the suites on board with the mysthical fantastic ROI. But if it had been
    difficult to program/maintain it wouldn't have gone much further than a historic
    side note to the web. What really made it shine, IMHO, is that it is easy
    to program in. Garbage collection and full object orientation along with
    good base classes make it usable to a wide varity of programmers. Add to
    that the syntax that is very close to c/c++ and alot of press hype and you
    have a winner.

    C++, VB and the others all have there strengths and weaknesses but all are
    more difficult to write AND maintain especially in the rotating developer
    world we live in.

    VB can be very hard to maintain since there are so many ways to do basically
    the same thing.
    The bang (obj!fieldname vs obj.fields("fieldname").value) and sub calling
    are just two examples.)

    And, as had been said before, (because many of us REALLY wanted it to happen)
    if Sun and MS could have worked it out, things could be really good right
    now. Or maybe not.

    At any rate, I believe .NET will succeed not due to it's technical merits
    alone. It will be how useful the majority of programmers (and, hopefully,
    not just windows programmers) find it. The funny thing is what determines
    it's success or failure might come down to something not even known at this
    point.

    I can see that one of the hyped features, the ability to use mulitple languages,
    could actually hurt .NET. This could very easily cause a maintanence nightmare
    if not handled correctly. Imagine a project with perl, fortran, cobol, vb,
    c# and c++ managed with possibly a bit of ADA thrown in. Any body else see
    a problem?


    >The technology graveyard is full of many tools/technologies that were(and
    >maybe still are) much better than their surviving [existing] counterparts.
    > And considering that, since .Net is so much better than anything else,

    beware!
    >
    >



  6. #21
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "MarkN" <mnuttall@Nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >Not defending Sun, but I don't think (conjecture) that MS's purpose was

    to
    >get behind Java ('tried') as it was to keep developers tied to them and

    Windows
    >- a really good preventative measure.


    Gotta agree on this one. I believe the whole J++ thing was really an attempt
    at trying to keep Java programmers on Windows. Having said that, at the time,
    the J++/Windows combo was the best GUI development support for Java.
    So basically, the dev community got screwed due to bad actions on the part
    of both companies. MS' agenda was to keep Java on Windows, and Sun, instead
    of learning from MS and integrated/expanding Java, sought to stamp out the
    changes outright, simply because it was a MS rivalry thing.

    >>I wonder if
    >>we would even have .NET today if Sun had been willing to compete, rather
    >>than go running to the courts?

    >
    >Nope. As I gaze into my crystal ball I see we would have WindowsJava and
    >Java.


    Yep. MS wasn't willing to concede and neither was Sun, so most likely you'd
    see two different products. On the other hand, you can see .NET as the natural
    extension to that competition - IOW: the second product that was bound to
    happen anyway.

    -Rob

  7. #22
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:31:22 EST, Mark Jerde
    <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:

    >Comments? (What if all the MS Mensan's had gotten behind Java
    >& J2EE? Where would computing be today?)


    First, I welcome a viewpoint which roughly corresponds to my own.
    Second, I do not dislike, loathe, hate, whatever, the individuals at
    Microsoft, no matter what each and every one of them do, from the
    lowliest tea boy to the chief himself. I'm sure that individually each
    and every one strives to do a good job. But I loathe the way Microsoft
    is insinuating itself like a veritable behemoth into all corners of
    computing, now also to include games computing, and who knows what
    next. I believe that monopolistic business practices tend to suppress
    innovation, because no small startup feels as if it has a leg to stand
    on when faced with such a mighty adversary as Microsoft, let alone
    obtain any venture capital.

    This is not good for consumers.

    The internet is free. But Microsoft appears to be trying every way it
    can think of to make people pay for transmitting or receiving data
    over it. If there were a multitude of alternatives from which
    consumers could choose, then by definition we wouldn't be talking
    about 'functional monopolies'.

    This is not good for consumers.

    The only Promised Land I see is one dominated by Microsoft's .NET
    hegemony, which may end up excluding anyone who refuses to sign up to
    Passport or participate in .NET My Services. I believe the full
    functionality of certain aspects of XP is available only after signing
    up? Correct me if I'm wrong on this, because, surprise, surprise, I do
    not have XP!

    The Promised Land as envisaged by Microsoft is not good for consumers
    as it will stifle what little choices they have left.

    MM

  8. #23
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:05:40 EST, Mark Jerde
    <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:

    > Why can't we all get along? <g>


    Because Sun and the others put quality at the top of their list and
    not features. Ford had amazing success with the Model T. There were a
    few things you could say about it. It was simple, therefore any garage
    could repair it. It was cheap, therefore most anyone to afford one. It
    was reliable, and they sold about 15 million of them.

    MM

  9. #24
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:14:48 EST, Mark Jerde
    <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:

    >This is my viewpoint; this is my plea. Convince me otherwise.


    The Bill Gates memo "We must do better" says it all:

    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-817343.html?legacy=zdnn

    MM

  10. #25
    MarkN Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 18 Jan 2002 15:32:05 GMT, "Paul Linville"
    ><paullinville@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I can see that one of the hyped features, the ability to use mulitple languages,
    >>could actually hurt .NET. This could very easily cause a maintanence nightmare
    >>if not handled correctly. Imagine a project with perl, fortran, cobol,

    vb,
    >>c# and c++ managed with possibly a bit of ADA thrown in. Any body else

    see
    >>a problem?

    >
    >Well, yes, now that you mention it!
    >
    >MM


    Me too. Well not for VS.NET and C# and VS.Perl and VS.Python since MS wrote
    them or hired people to do it.


  11. #26
    balanbe Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:

    >First, I welcome a viewpoint which roughly corresponds to my own.
    >Second, I do not dislike, loathe, hate, whatever, the individuals at
    >Microsoft, no matter what each and every one of them do, from the
    >lowliest tea boy to the chief himself. I'm sure that individually each
    >and every one strives to do a good job. But I loathe the way Microsoft
    >is insinuating itself like a veritable behemoth into all corners of
    >computing, now also to include games computing, and who knows what
    >next. I believe that monopolistic business practices tend to suppress
    >innovation, because no small startup feels as if it has a leg to stand
    >on when faced with such a mighty adversary as Microsoft, let alone
    >obtain any venture capital.


    Thanks Mike. This makes some sense. I was confused when people bash Microsoft
    for all the good things it brings forth. Now I get the point. We do not want
    Mic to be everywhere.


    >The Promised Land as envisaged by Microsoft is not good for consumers
    >as it will stifle what little choices they have left.


    I am not worried about it. Any promised land as envisaged by anyone, anyone,
    other than Jesus is a trash bag anyway.

    BB

  12. #27
    MarkN Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    >[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]

    Now if we could just easily get rid of this Zombie VB Classic code.

  13. #28
    MarkN Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "balanbe" <balanbe@balcha.eth> wrote:
    >
    >kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >>First, I welcome a viewpoint which roughly corresponds to my own.
    >>Second, I do not dislike, loathe, hate, whatever, the individuals at
    >>Microsoft, no matter what each and every one of them do, from the
    >>lowliest tea boy to the chief himself. I'm sure that individually each
    >>and every one strives to do a good job. But I loathe the way Microsoft
    >>is insinuating itself like a veritable behemoth into all corners of
    >>computing, now also to include games computing, and who knows what
    >>next. I believe that monopolistic business practices tend to suppress
    >>innovation, because no small startup feels as if it has a leg to stand
    >>on when faced with such a mighty adversary as Microsoft, let alone
    >>obtain any venture capital.

    >
    >Thanks Mike. This makes some sense. I was confused when people bash Microsoft
    >for all the good things it brings forth. Now I get the point. We do not

    want
    >Mic to be everywhere.


    Playing many different sports isn't bad. Dirty pool is.



  14. #29
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM

    Yeah, what's next? Quality? <rolling eyes>
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c486246.2652815@news.devx.com...
    > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:14:48 EST, Mark Jerde
    > <mark.jerde@spicedhamverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    > >This is my viewpoint; this is my plea. Convince me otherwise.

    >
    > The Bill Gates memo "We must do better" says it all:
    >
    > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-817343.html?legacy=zdnn
    >
    > MM



  15. #30
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: MS, AT&T, IBM


    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:3c4844c8$1@147.208.176.211...

    > Gotta agree on this one. I believe the whole J++ thing was really an

    attempt
    > at trying to keep Java programmers on Windows.


    Oh, I thought it was attempt to keep _Windows_ programmers on _Windows_
    even when they used Java to develop their applications. Entirely sensible I
    would have thought. After all, by refusing to de-merge the language and the
    platform, Sun was trying to tie _Windows_ programmers who use to it's own
    proprietary platform - the JVM.

    > Having said that, at the time,
    > the J++/Windows combo was the best GUI development support for Java.
    > So basically, the dev community got screwed due to bad actions on the part
    > of both companies. MS' agenda was to keep Java on Windows, and Sun,

    instead
    > of learning from MS and integrated/expanding Java, sought to stamp out the
    > changes outright, simply because it was a MS rivalry thing.


    Sun sought more than that. To Sun, software it just a way to sell more
    hardware - it *needs* 100% Pure Java. I prefer .NET and later editions of
    J++ that gave me the choice.

    > >Nope. As I gaze into my crystal ball I see we would have WindowsJava and
    > >Java.

    >
    > Yep. MS wasn't willing to concede and neither was Sun, so most likely

    you'd
    > see two different products. On the other hand, you can see .NET as the

    natural
    > extension to that competition - IOW: the second product that was bound to
    > happen anyway.


    Or a product that could be extended to do what either wanted. MS would have
    been happy to get this but Sun wasn't for good reason since most JVMs (from
    all vendors) run on Windows and developers would use those
    extensions...erm...extensively. ;-)

    It's a market share thing....

    Kunle



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center