No More IE for Mac

[Fukui]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

Originally posted by dguisinger
ROFLMAO......bad bad examples.
Pocket PC? That's MS's own OS, an NT derivative. They didn't embrace or extend anything, totally different platform from Palm. Are you then saying Palm embraced and extended newton?

PocketPC Smartphone...ever heard of sendo? Hmm, stole thier designs and gave'em to a bunch of cheap Taiwanese manufacturers, once sendo realized what MS was doing to their "manufacturing partner" it was too late, and now thier stuck in litigation, MS loves litigation, the ultimate stalling tactic.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7015
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28677.html

DOS? Don't make me laugh, Microsoft created it for IBM, then offered to buy it and IBM sold the rights. DOS was theres. Sure there were clones, but MS owned the rights to the real DOS. There were no official standards, but the competing DOS brands did keep up in compatibility and features.

Uh, MS BOUGHT DOS, anybody knows that.
And, there were many OS that were some kind of DOS there was even an apple dos for the Apple 2, I have the diskette!! All MS did was snuff out competition like DR-DOS unfairly because of thier market position.

I am not familiar with the changes to Kerbos or COM that MS has done that has upset you.

Proprietary exentions to Kerboeros Authentication used in Active Directory.
http://www.chguy.net/news/mar00/embraceanddeform.html

COM was touted as an "open" API, then came along COM+, whops I guess after everyone fell for the open COM; COM+ appeard and wasn't submitted...
http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/ObjectMag-comparison/Comparison.html

Quote:COM+ can be considered closed because the relationship between Microsoft and the ActiveX standards body is unclear, and it appears that Microsoft is not required to implement anything the body specifies

OS/2 was a stab in the back.

No, Win95/NT4 was a stab in the back.
IBM did most of the work!

 

[dguisinger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

Fukul

First off, I agreed with you on OS/2. Read carefully.


Second, what I said about IBM & MS & DOS was:

MS developed PC-DOS for IBM. I beleive Bill Gate's mother knew someone at IBM, if the story I heard was right, and got him the in.

Bill Gates realized how important DOS was and offered to buy it. IBM sold it to them, dumb move. IBM then continued to license it as PC-DOS.

DR Dos, yes I had it...DR DOS 6 which had GEM as its shell. GEM lost to Windows 3.1 as a DOS windowing shell.

Big whoop, lots of companies tried. There was DesqView X as well which ran Win3.0 and X-Windows apps, amazing someftware.

But MS only screwed IBM by not telling them they were secretly working on Windows 3 behind their backs.

Windows for SmartPhones. We will see, there are aligations. I can tell you MS has so many different platforms that compete on the same devices, that their current software might have came from a totally unrelated development group. No wrong doing if so.

COM+ and ActiveDirectory are OS level technologies. You are never required to base everything off standards. AFP from Apple wasn't, nor was SMB from Microsoft.

Again, like many things, for the most part COM+ is additions developers request. You don't need to use COM+, no one is forcing you. You can still use COM just fine.

 

[Fukui]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

Originally posted by MacCoaster
On Windows, sure. There are a lot more Java developers than you think. Java is popular in the server world.

Tell that to the thousands of consumers that use apps on the web still using the never updated proprietary java in windows. Who cares what happens in the server world, on the desktop, java was killed by MS: by embracing, extending in a proprietary manner, and now, with .NET, extinguishing.

Right out of the box, it's a good thing. My Linux portion works great with Kerberos.

Portion of what???
I'm sure the Kerberos developers had fun reverse-engineering MS's jacked-up version.

tole what code? The BSD network stack. No, that wasn't stealing. Read the BSD License and come back to me.

Apple did the same thing with BSD. They "stole" FreeBSD and the Mach kernel. But they're Apple, so they're not stealing. Right? Again, I redirect you to the BSD License.

Oh, no no no no no... Thats not at all what I'm talking about. MS taking the BSD stack is all fine and good, its in with the licence, I dont care about that. I'm talking about being convicted in COURT.

See here: http://www.theregus.com/content/4/24893.html
Fined 3 million francs for software piracy, oh the irony

So basically everything GPL is evil?

Uh, no, I mean, TO MS, OPEN STANDARDS MEAN NOTHING, they are just used to get dev suckered in, then they close the door and weld it shut behind them.

 

[Fukui]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

Originally posted by dguisinger

Bill Gates realized how important DOS was and offered to buy it. IBM sold it to them, dumb move. IBM then continued to license it as PC-DOS.

I'm not sure about that, IBM had no OS to use on its new PCs so they asked MS for one, they bought it from some guy in seattle...ask yourself this, why would IBM of all companies sell thier OS to MS to develop when they were looking for an OS?? Answer: they didnt have one.

 

[dguisinger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

No, Win95/NT4 was a stab in the back.
IBM did most of the work! [/B]

Actually, if I remember correctly, OS/2 and NT were not related very closely.

Win32 asn't related that much either.

However, there was cross licensing.
Remember OS/2 did gain officially licensed Windows 3.0 compatibility.

Also, the Win16 & Win32 APIs were ass-backwards in their bitmap handling due to input from IBM. IBM's coordinate system was flipped from the Windows coordinate system. Yet, Microsoft used the same bitmap file / memory format that they jointly developed in Windows...and do to this day. It is interesting that a bitmap is pretty much stored backwards.

As far as who worked on both. IBM and MS worked equally on OS/2 2.0, which was MS's last version of OS/2 they supported.

There was apparently a lot of infighting in the ranks between IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft developed Windows 3.0 as a side project, and didn't tell IBM until it was nearly ready and shocked all developers who MS had already told OS/2 was the future. Remember that Windows 3.0 wasn't that great, it makes me honestly think it was a backup plan to OS/2, and that disagreements between the companies forced Microsoft to abandon the joint project. I had OS/2 2.0. It had short comings. Didn't support my graphics card, which was bad, because you needed to fully boot up to install the graphics drivers. There is a bright idea.

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

Originally posted by Fukui
Portion of what???
I'm sure the Kerberos developers had fun reverse-engineering MS's jacked-up version.

When I mean portion, I mean portion of the computer, as in Linux as a whole support my Win network's Kerberos just fine.

See here: http://www.theregus.com/content/4/24893.html
Fined 3 million francs for software piracy, oh the irony

Interesting, never heard of that. It's probably similar to SCO's claims against IBM (IBM allegedly used SCO's licensed code and distributed them for free in the Linux kernel and other tools).

 

[dguisinger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

Originally posted by Fukui
I'm not sure about that, IBM had no OS to use on its new PCs so they asked MS for one, they bought it from some guy in seattle...ask yourself this, why would IBM of all companies sell thier OS to MS to develop when they were looking for an OS?? Answer: they didnt have one.

It is a proven fact. IBM contracted Microsoft to build the OS. It was IBM's. IBM had no long term plans for it, in those days computer architecture changed so fast that they probably figured it was worthless in a few years. Microsoft offered to buy the rights to DOS. IBM agreed. You can look it up, its all over the place.

 

[maxvamp]

MacCoaster

Dude.. lets get a few fact's straight...

No, OS/2 died because IBM decided to drop it due to the fact that NO ONE was buying it! Their stuff was too expensive.

Yeah your right... I paid in 1996 ( or abouts ) $159 for Warp 4. That year I also paid $299 for NT 4 workstation with a Kingston memory rebate offer. I was even insane enough to pay $129 for OSX.2. Really, you should get your facts straight. OS/2 was cheaper than Windows 95 retail ( no upgrade pricing allowed here ). I purchased OS/2 v3 , v4 and eComStation from Indelible Blue way back when. What do you call way too expensive?

I develop in .NET as well. I develop all kinds of serious applications, web backends, etc. Microsoft used it to program Visual Studio .NET (entirely in .NET), their massive sites, their next version of Windows basically has all basic programs done in .NET. Please don't tell me .NET isn't for serious development.

What parts don't work well. I'd like to know.

Again .. lets get a few things right. I have been working with Windows 2003 ( the newest OS ), and it's apps *ARE NOT* developed in .NET. There is no way that MS would write any piece of any of their OS in an interpreted language. Even if you want to say that it was written in C++, I would argue that code was unmanaged. MS wants speed, and even in C++ you would have to launch the interpreter to run the Managed code.
For a refresher, .NET will tokenize the code, so once the assembly is compiled the first time ( for that .Net session ) the code will run nearly as fast as native machine code. Still, you don't want to use this in the OS as your apps when you want to impress people with speed and snappiness. Can you name the apps in 2003 that are written against .Net???

.Net isn't for serious development any more than VB is. I doubt you will ever see a file system written in .NET. GOD help us if someone tried. VB and the .Net framework can be used in professional applications however. You will find it influencing assembly lines and laser light shows. You will not find it used to write a virus scanner, or device driver. Define serious.

Why are you terrified to install SPs? They're very well done with .NET. I've gone through .NET 1.0 SP0, then SP1, SP2, then .NET 1.1 SP0 right now.. all are rock solid and it doesn't even break 1.0 programs because of side by side assemblies. Java can't beat that. .NET is definitely Microsoft's most robust piece of framework and software.

Funny, I write a lot of ADO.NET in C# and I started using Beta 1 -> had to basically port my apps for Beta 2 -> and again for .Net V1. I applied .NET SP1, and once again watched my ADO.NET apps break. I have not bothered upgrading any further, since I am tired of fixing these apps. They are internal apps, so I have the luxury of stopping there. I do use VS.Net, and I have to say that, while not perfect, it is a veerryy nice IDE. I have no problems with the dev environment. The framework, I think you give too much credit. I was able ( way back when ) to run 1.0.2 Java apps on a machine with 1.1.4. Many of the APIs were deprecated, but the apps still ran on the newer JREs. Even in the early days =, most Java JREs up through 1.1.8 had some wild bugs. I have a hard time with the implication that .NET is rock solid. If this were true, you wouldn't need service packs.

ou haven't been following .NET, I take. You're wrong about unmanaged code. .NET can do it. You simply state an unsafe code region, but all other code regions are safe. In fact, this is an advantage over Java. You CAN run unmanaged code. You can even mix or match them.

BTW, there's not much web friendliness with Assembly! No one in their right mind would program for the web in such a low level! It's not productive. PHP, PERL involve cumbersome code escaping and its very hard to modularize. That's not friendly to me.

First, unmanaged C++ code contains no .NET calls. Yes you can mix and match, which is one of .NET's charms. The other day, I was even able to write Windows Script files using .NET . My points in my previous comments were based on speed and power. .Net code is not as fast as assembly or unmanaged C or C++. I go to the classes and stay up on the technology. You can write ISAPI web filters in either, but your right, it would be a real bear in either pure C++ or assembly. .Net wins for simplicity and Power. V2 should be nice. Even Java had a lot of problems until V2, and according to some, still does.

Now, address the real issue... What will .Net look like on OSX??

Max

 

[dguisinger]

Re: MacCoaster

Max: Comparing beta 1 and beta 2 to final code is not fair.

Compare final release to final release.

In is an intermediate language, byte code. It is a JIT compiler which caches x86 output unlike Java, so subsequent running is faster.

Infact, I have a book on MSIL assembly language and bytecodes. You could build a processor around it.

I dont know about Windows 2003, however Windows Longhorn the entire Explorer shell is programmed in .NET. Just ask Paul Thurrot, the expert on upcoming Windows releases. www.winsupersite.com.

Visual Studio is also programmed in .NET. There is some bug in visual studio that causes it to crash when the network goes down working on a remote project. I receive the .NET CLR crash output, not the normal Windows crash screen.

 

[Fukui]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed

Originally posted by dguisinger
It is a proven fact. IBM contracted Microsoft to build the OS. It was IBM's. IBM had no long term plans for it, in those days computer architecture changed so fast that they probably figured it was worthless in a few years. Microsoft offered to buy the rights to DOS. IBM agreed. You can look it up, its all over the place.

Yea, well, DOS was pretty worthless, especially considering, internally, MS was using UNIX till about NT came around!!!! They could shovel the crap DOS to the consumer, but wansn't good enough for themselves....nice.

 

[maxvamp]

Beta to final

dguisinger : Your right.. comparing Betas to final is not fair. I expected that when I was writing code pre-release, but when .Net code V1 changed ever so slightly when SP1 was applied, and once again broke my code, I decided to wait for a while ( V2 ).

My points to my threads are these:

.Net is not the most powerful thing out there, and is not suited for absolutely everything, as some want so badly for the readers to believe. To make such statement would be analogous to saying that either the Opteron, or the 970 will kill Intel... Ain't gonna happen.

.Net is a really good / flexable framework, that gets rid of the need for some of MS's previous works ( Win32 API comes to mind ). In honesty, I actually like .NET for a lot of things, but not everything. Perl, Java, C++ all have their place without .Net's help because they work well without it. Let's give those devils their do as well.

just my 8 cents worth.

Max

 

[dguisinger]

Re: Beta to final

Max:

Would you agree with me on the following (which is what this whole discussion started from)?

1) .NET is not out to destroy the compatibility of browsers

2) Many windows developers (upwards of 50% nowdays) are using .NET in one way or another either on old apps, COM objects, or net apps (web or SWF)

3) Apple would benifit by supporting Mono, which would allow many Windows apps to run natively on OSX (As native as Java) without modification

If those 3 elements are agreed on, then I have no argument with you. What I dont like is people spreading misfacts about anything.

Yes, PHP, Perl, etc has its place. However, they do not nessecarly have the ease of use, and pack the same amount of punch in as little end user code.

As far as your problems, I haven't noticed any. Usually, MS notes differences that break comatibility between service packs in .NET in their change notes.

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: MacCoaster

Originally posted by maxvamp
Yeah your right... I paid in 1996 ( or abouts ) $159 for Warp 4. That year I also paid $299 for NT 4 workstation with a Kingston memory rebate offer. I was even insane enough to pay $129 for OSX.2. Really, you should get your facts straight. OS/2 was cheaper than Windows 95 retail ( no upgrade pricing allowed here ). I purchased OS/2 v3 , v4 and eComStation from Indelible Blue way back when. What do you call way too expensive?

Right, and OS/2 had how many drivers? NT/W9x had more commercial support and thus worth the $299.

Again .. lets get a few things right. I have been working with Windows 2003 ( the newest OS ), and it's apps *ARE NOT* developed in .NET. There is no way that MS would write any piece of any of their OS in an interpreted language.

When did I EVER say Server 2003? I said next version as in Longhorn. They've already ported at least explorer and control panel things to .NET.

Even if you want to say that it was written in C++, I would argue that code was unmanaged. MS wants speed, and even in C++ you would have to launch the interpreter to run the Managed code.

Huh? You launch the interpreter once and it will process any requests as other .NET programs run. It won't be an issue since explorer will have started the interpreter already. It's not exactly an interpreted language, its an intermediate language. It's much lower level than most interpreted languages.

For a refresher, .NET will tokenize the code, so once the assembly is compiled the first time ( for that .Net session ) the code will run nearly as fast as native machine code. Still, you don't want to use this in the OS as your apps when you want to impress people with speed and snappiness. Can you name the apps in 2003 that are written against .Net???

Oh yes I can, my ASP.NET sites, my custom Windows Service module, etc.

You don't have to use .NET for future things, many games are sticking to true C/C++. Once processors are powerful enough for everyone (honestly, I thing a good PC would do fine, my Server 2003 is on a P2 233 and its blazing fast).

.Net isn't for serious development any more than VB is. I doubt you will ever see a file system written in .NET. GOD help us if someone tried. VB and the .Net framework can be used in professional applications however. You will find it influencing assembly lines and laser light shows. You will not find it used to write a virus scanner, or device driver. Define serious.

No you define serious. I don't define serious as in what level of th OS it is involved in, but how much influence it has on a person's daily computing.

Filesystems can't be written in .NET. They're block devices and follow certain schema.

You just proved why .NET will be successful.. it is meant to improve the end user's experience along with the developers. I seriously hope that most apps for Windows in the next few years are being migrated to .NET if possible. It's great for end user applications and back end code.

Funny, I write a lot of ADO.NET in C# and I started using Beta 1 -> had to basically port my apps for Beta 2 -> and again for .Net V1. I applied .NET SP1, and once again watched my ADO.NET apps break. I have not bothered upgrading any further, since I am tired of fixing these apps. They are internal apps, so I have the luxury of stopping there. I do use VS.Net, and I have to say that, while not perfect, it is a veerryy nice IDE. I have no problems with the dev environment. The framework, I think you give too much credit. I was able ( way back when ) to run 1.0.2 Java apps on a machine with 1.1.4. Many of the APIs were deprecated, but the apps still ran on the newer JREs. Even in the early days =, most Java JREs up through 1.1.8 had some wild bugs. I have a hard time with the implication that .NET is rock solid. If this were true, you wouldn't need service packs.

You can't count Beta. Sorry. I've developed apps from final 1.0 to 1.1, absolutely no breakages and I use ADO.NET all the time.

First, unmanaged C++ code contains no .NET calls. Yes you can mix and match, which is one of .NET's charms. The other day, I was even able to write Windows Script files using .NET . My points in my previous comments were based on speed and power. .Net code is not as fast as assembly or unmanaged C or C++. I go to the classes and stay up on the technology. You can write ISAPI web filters in either, but your right, it would be a real bear in either pure C++ or assembly. .Net wins for simplicity and Power. V2 should be nice. Even Java had a lot of problems until V2, and according to some, still does.

When did I *ever* say that unmanaged C++ had .NET calls? No. You make a region in a .NET app unsafe and thus.. gasp.. unmanaged.

And when did I ever say that .NET apps were faster than assembly? I'm talking about PRODUCTIVITY. I can get an ASP.NET site up and running really quick, but in Assembly it'd take YEARS. Not worth it.

Now, address the real issue... What will .Net look like on OSX??

If the mono guys are able to keep up on OS X, it could have cocoa bindings, SWF->Cocoa, etc. I'd love to have ASP.NET running on Apache on OS X. That has nothing to do with UI look, really. Just the ability to do it.

 

[maxvamp]

RE: .NET

Would you agree with me on the following (which is what this whole discussion started from)?

1) .NET is not out to destroy the compatibility of browsers

2) Many windows developers (upwards of 50% nowadays) are using .NET in one way or another either on old apps, COM objects, or net apps (web or SWF)

3) Apple would benefit by supporting Mono, which would allow many Windows apps to run natively on OSX (As native as Java) without modification

If those 3 elements are agreed on, then I have no argument with you. What I don't like is people spreading misfacts about anything.

Yes, PHP, Perl, etc has its place. However, they do not necessarily have the ease of use, and pack the same amount of punch in as little end user code.

As far as your problems, I haven't noticed any. Usually, MS notes differences that break comatibility between service packs in .NET in their change notes.

1.) I completely agree. MS wanted to actually kill JAVA on the Windows platform and expand an edge to harm LINUX in the process. MS now has the ability to pick and choose what platforms it will port .NET to. I do get aggravated when they use advanced features of IE6 to interrupt my browsing. This is more DHTML, and there is a real reason that Microsoft will not offer a Block Popups option. It's the same reason Tivo got sued... MS can control web browsing without .NET
2.) There are way to many VB and C++ developers out there that have not, and will not upgrade. For VB 6 developers, it is even worse because the language changed rather dramatically for .NET. I think 50% is really aggressive. I might be more inclined to say 20 to 30%. Even then, it isn't web developers, but Intranet developers where that number would be much higher. Corporate Networks can afford to standardize on a set of technologies.

Apple would benefit from making sure they do everything possible **NOT** to be able to run Win32 apps. When they do this, they are now chasing MS on every little change they make. Apple would start knowing the fear of applying Service Packs. IBM had this exact problem, when MS decided that they were going to require Wins32 in Windows 3.1 apps.

Apple needs to encourage, or develop applications that can compete with the Windows platform. I think so far, they are doing pretty good. Look at Safari, and OSX...Better yet, Compare Adobe Premier to FCP ( all aspects, not just speed.

I guess at some point we must agree to disagree.

Max

 

[Fukui]

Re: Re: MacCoaster

Originally posted by MacCoaster
You just proved why .NET will be successful.. it is meant to improve the end user's experience along with the developers. I seriously hope that most apps for Windows in the next few years are being migrated to .NET if possible. It's great for end user applications and back end code..

Better than what, we already have Java and had OPENSTEP now cocoa that achieves the same things that .NET aims to help... if it were from any other company .NET/C# wouldn't succeed because they are trying to address a problem already solved, but because of MS's MNPLY it probably will get shoved down our throats eventually.

 

[maxvamp]

MacCoaster

Dude... you are off base and starting to sound like a zealot ( usually more fluff than fact ). .NET will not rule the world, and will not replace C++ on OSs. I know of many parts of Windows where .Net will not improve the end user's experience, only the coder will, and a good coder can do that in many different ways and languages. The best GUI coders I know avoid .Net like the plague, primarily due to performance of .NET. Furthermore, why is it that Win2003 runs poorly on my dual 550 with 512MB, yet screams on your 233, a machine that does not meet the recommended minimum requirements? If I didn't know better, I would say that you are on the MS dole for the role of HypeMaster.

One other thing..

OS/2 HAS ALWAYS HAD MORE drivers that Windows NT. Windows NT 4 workstation was only worth $299 because that is what MS charged. It actually sold fewer copies than OS/2. It also was less compatible with the Windows apps of the time, since most were 16 Bit. Your argument of OS/2 was too expensive does not hold water. It was cheaper than all Windows. IBM had a chance to save it, but chose not to. IBM does many amazingly stupid things like that. Only recently, they sold off their HD division. Wait to see how that bites them. You lost your argument drop it.

.Net is really good when used in it's proper context. It is not, nor ever will be the absolute programming solution. Can't be, as MS will need to sell a newer technology in a few years that solves the short comings of .Net.

Max

 

[bdkennedy1]

It's not IE anymore...

...it's called MSN.

 

[RandomDeadHead]

GOOD

 

[Trimix]

okay, i admit i said 'to hell with ie'.
then i read all your comments on how other browsers might not work in certain areas of the www. you got me worried
i have only been using ie so far (don't flame me), so i downloaded CAMINO and tried it on my bank (credit suisse).
and it worked - and much faster
so in my mind even if there is no ie in future, then that would make the inital purchase of a new mac a little cheaper, no ? apple need not pay any fees for an ie licence, or am i wrong ?
in any event, if apple now can produce an office package which allows for troublefree sharing of excel and word files with pceees, then in my book my mac will be m$-free (yeah, i have to get rid of entourage too)
i am not a poweruser, but my business depends on my computer to perform without any hiccups, and the only one that fits the requirement so far has been apple.
p.s. logged in via CAMINO

 

[blakespot]

Re: Competition

Originally posted by shangodee
The one thing that should be taken into consideration is that IE was at one time a formidable competitor and dominator of the apple browser contingency. In that sense it spurred competition which is always a positive thing. While IE may have been long dead, losing a once formidable browser is not necessarily entirely benevolent. It's always good to have someone beating down the door, and in the case of a huge developer like microsoft, their knocks are all the more loud. While I don't doubt apple is trying to make safari the best it can, at the same time, losing a powerful developer in some ways may make browser development on the mac platform more lathargic.

IE is still far and away the most widely used browser on the Mac.


blakespot

 

[Panther]

Re: Re: .NET == BULL CRAP!!

Couple of things...

Originally posted by MacCoaster
I develop in .NET as well. I develop all kinds of serious applications, web backends, etc. Microsoft used it to program Visual Studio .NET (entirely in .NET), their massive sites

Actually most (90%?) of VS.NET is written in C++ using low level COM interfaces to hook back into the CLR. You smack into this if you ever try to write an extension that hooks into VS.NET (say, to add a new kind of docking panel).

Also MS is quite behind the curve in moving their site to .NET. MSN is pretty far along, but MS.COM is a long way behind.

I work on www.dell.com, and the main site has been built using .NET since June 2001 (it is turned into static .htm files before being pushed live), and all but one of Dell's US-site live apps will be ASP.NET based by the end of the year (the other one is Java based). The apps on the Dell Canada site has been live on .NET for a year... from the System configuration tool through to the Basket and Checkout...

And to folks saying ".NET isn't used to build real applications", Dell.com has $50M a day going through it, which is pretty darn real.

Before everyone starts calling me a troll... I consider myself a Mac guy, my main home system is a dual 1.2 PowerMac, and I have developed several apps in Cocoa. I have a Dell Precision workstation next to my Mac, but its been switched off the past 3 months

.NET isn't just Windows API, but a generally defined API by the ECMA.

... it was actually defined by MS and submitted to ECMA. And its only the C# and CLS that was submitted (CLS is the Common Language Specification ... basically the standards for language interoperability at the object level).

 

[dguisinger]

Re: Re: Re: .NET == BULL CRAP!!

And to folks saying ".NET isn't used to build real applications", Dell.com has $50M a day going through it, which is pretty darn real.

[/B]

Exactly, it is ready for the real world. However I'd beg to differ on the Visual Studio issue. The compiler is 100% written in C#. And most of the Visual Studio IDE is written in C#. There may be some legacy COM components, but porting to .NET isn't that hard. I know that Visual Studio is in .NET, because when Visual Studio crashes, I get the CLR runtime crash dialog, not the Windows XP dialog. And for somereason, Microsoft's own developers claim i experience a bug few others do, so they wont fix it, but it crashes several times a day when the network slows down while accessing my ASP.NET projects. So I see the dialog enough to know that, when Visual Studio .NET accesses files, it is using .NET. If it uses .NET to read files for display, and .NET to compile, I am pretty sure most of it is in .NET.

 

[maxvamp]

Panther

Panther... Thank you for the clarifications on what VS.Net was written in. I would like to ask a question though... When Dell uses .NET is it to rewrite all of their applications? The claim I made was that 'serious' applications will not be / are not being written in .NET. My point is that I know that Backup Apps, Databases, and even Quicken will never be written in .NET. .Net's primary target right now is empowering the web by offering better interfaces for ecommerce. I have to ask...When you say DELL is pumping $50Mil... are you talking about the work you have seen/done on the web sights, or are we talking about every app DELL uses. I suspect that it is from the Web site to the assembly line...maybe a little into inventory management if Dell was really aggressive. After all, SQL 2000 would be at the heart of that system.

dguisinger: Did you read what Panther said??? He flatly said VS.NET is not written in C#/.NET but instead it is/was written in C++, which I agree. You complain when your projects crash, and you see a different pop-up dialog. That does not mean that it is written in .NET or C#, it just means that the app has custom dialog boxes. Lets see what pops up when the CLR crashes. You will see something that better resembles Access Violations or asserts that reference a .DLL ( not a .NET component ).

Lastly - of the 5 biggest software companies out there, I know that 4 of them absolutely are not embracing .NET. MS is the only one, and then not across the board.


.NET is fairly great but not perfect...Now, when is it coming to OSX and HP-UX?

Max

 

[celaurie]

Shame that. NOT!

 

[edenwaith]

Re: bad web designers!

Originally posted by RHutch
Web designing is not my job, but when I read basic books on building web pages, they all said to test with different browsers to make sure that things would look correct as often as possible. I thought that professionals should test with different browsers too. This says so much about M$'s control in this area.

I do tons of web development work, and it is a huge irk with me if people don't check their web sites on various browsers on different platforms. I think any web designer who only caters to IE needs to be shot (after being beaten and tortured that is).