Re: Not good news for mac users
Was that a political comment in a mac forum or am I just farting lollipops?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No More IE for Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Panther
Apps such as backup apps will always need some low level components written in C++ or assembly because they need to talk to system drivers, but the UI could be in .NET just as much of the UI in OSX in written in Cocoa (.NET code ends up getting JITted to assembly instructions, and is actually faster than C++ for some things (memory allocations being one, because .NET allocates from free space and cleans up later, not having to worry about finding the first free block of the necessary size)
Bear in mind when .NET came along the VS team was pretty far along with their next version. Being the tools team, when .NET surfaced within MS it fell to them to totally change their roadmap and retool.
The CLR team was able to give them the core compiler, and the parser pieces the syntax highlighting is based on, but most of the windowing system, editor, debugger, help system, Intellisense features and dialog boxes are written in C++, not using .NET at all.
The thing to remember is that .NET is not a totally isolated world. It was originally started as COM+ 3.0 -- if you look at COM 3.0 roadmap slides from 4 years ago you'll see talk of garbage collection and the like. Along the way other teams came on board such as what is now the ASP.NET team, but deep under the covers it is still a COM system.
I'd love to be able to use the WinForms classes to write MacOS apps, or write ASP.NET apps that ran against Apache, but I'm holding my breath either.
I'd say I disagree on this point. The CLR is present in Yukon (next version of SQL Server) allowing you to write stored procs in C# or whatever (Objective CAML anyone?). You can also expect to see most of the supplied apps in Longhorn (next Windows) to be in .NET because they building the CLR into the OS!
Apps such as backup apps will always need some low level components written in C++ or assembly because they need to talk to system drivers, but the UI could be in .NET just as much of the UI in OSX in written in Cocoa (.NET code ends up getting JITted to assembly instructions, and is actually faster than C++ for some things (memory allocations being one, because .NET allocates from free space and cleans up later, not having to worry about finding the first free block of the necessary size)
For everything else I'd say its a mixture, as I'm sure it is in most places that have legacy VB/ASP stuff
Its not all C++... Its probably 10% or so CLR based, or at least it was in the first iteration. VS.NET may have more CLR-based code.
Bear in mind when .NET came along the VS team was pretty far along with their next version. Being the tools team, when .NET surfaced within MS it fell to them to totally change their roadmap and retool.
The CLR team was able to give them the core compiler, and the parser pieces the syntax highlighting is based on, but most of the windowing system, editor, debugger, help system, Intellisense features and dialog boxes are written in C++, not using .NET at all.
The thing to remember is that .NET is not a totally isolated world. It was originally started as COM+ 3.0 -- if you look at COM 3.0 roadmap slides from 4 years ago you'll see talk of garbage collection and the like. Along the way other teams came on board such as what is now the ASP.NET team, but deep under the covers it is still a COM system.
I see projects such as Mono as interesting intellectual exercises, but I don't think true porting will come about unless MS itself decides to do it. MS was working on .NET for four years or so. They started on V2 18 months ago and it won't ship for another year. The problem with Mono is that it will always be 12 to 18 months behind the "mother ship", and MS doesn't have to make it easy for them if they don't want to.
I'd love to be able to use the WinForms classes to write MacOS apps, or write ASP.NET apps that ran against Apache, but I'm holding my breath either.
Yeah, I recently tried to get a video of Jeff Gordon swapping rides with an F1 driver, and, what do you know, there is a worse format out there than WMV. It's called Real, and every time I can't get it to work (such as this time) I use the WMV version. Sadly, Real seems to be considered more standard than Quicktime, even though it totally blows.
Number of browsers
I think Mac OS X has the most browsers of any OS I can think of. Here are the browsers I have on my machine (not counting version numbers like Netscape 4, 6, 7).
Camino
Firebird
iCab
IE
Lynx
Mozilla
Netscape
Omniweb
Opera
Safari
I count 10 different browsers there. Camino, Omniweb, iCab and Safari are Mac-only. What Windows-only browsers are out there? Well, there was Phoenix/Firebird, but that is on OS X now, too.
I think Mac OS X has the most browsers of any OS I can think of. Here are the browsers I have on my machine (not counting version numbers like Netscape 4, 6, 7).
Camino
Firebird
iCab
IE
Lynx
Mozilla
Netscape
Omniweb
Opera
Safari
I count 10 different browsers there. Camino, Omniweb, iCab and Safari are Mac-only. What Windows-only browsers are out there? Well, there was Phoenix/Firebird, but that is on OS X now, too.
Panther
Yukon may have integrated CLR capabilities, but am I to understand that YUKON and beyond will actually be written in .NET? Will the next version of Exchange beyond Exchange 2003 be written in .NET? Will I have to launch the CLR to start my services?
When I mentioned DBs not being written in .NET, I should have specified that the engine itself. I would be heavily surprised if hardcore apps such as Backup used .NET even for the GUI. Many developers tried this route with JAVA, as it made similar claims, only for it to be disastrous. You see many of the claims made for JAVA were very similar to what I hear today on this board with .NET. My favorite from JAVA hype was that JAVA could run faster than C++ because the JVM optimized the final code for the processor it was running on. While theoretically this may be true, I doubt anyone has ever seen this in action. Bytecode is not and will never be faster than well written C++. Only the claims will come out faster.
I want to expand my view of where .NET will go and how apps will be written.
I see that VB programmers and web designers will eventual move to .NET when writing on Windows. This alone will be over 80% of all Windows developers. Microsoft will include ways for this to happen in all of their products. They realize that that is a large portion of their current non-.NET programming base. This is a current reality. I doubt may commercial applications will be re-written in .NET just to claim they wrote it in .NET. Quicktime, Real, Quicken, SQL Server, Lotus, Any enterprise backup app, ( and most consumer ones too ) games, and most other things I would find down at CompUSA, will not be written or re-written. Most enterprise apps ( sold to companies, and not written internally ) will not be rewritten. Internal corporate apps, Internets, and shareware most likely will be the dominant market.
Apple on the other hand will find Cocoa used in all newer apps, as Carbon becomes more antiquated. The Apple platform has few options, where on Windows, there are a ton of different interfaces to write to, and nearly as many MS tweaked languages to write them in.
This is my opinion based on all the goofy crap I have seen MS do in the past, and I stand by it. If people want to read that I am saying .Net will not be successful , then I am sorry they mis-read my comments. I feel that it will only be successful in certain areas, and will not buy the bull that everything in the future will be rewritten just to say 'I wrote it in .NET'. I have heard this hype before, and I am positive I will hear it again.
For those of us who write in .NET, we can enjoy it, and apply it where applicable, and for those who write in JAVA and C++, we can write where it makes sense too.
In all honestly, this is a Mac board, and .Net is not here. When it gets here, lets talk more.
Max
P.S. MS apps I have seen on the on Mac OSX generally perform much poorer than other apps similar apps written for OSX. IE falls in the category, and I for one will not be sorry to see it leave. On Windows IE is the fastest around, and I think that both of these are by design.
Max
Yukon may have integrated CLR capabilities, but am I to understand that YUKON and beyond will actually be written in .NET? Will the next version of Exchange beyond Exchange 2003 be written in .NET? Will I have to launch the CLR to start my services?
When I mentioned DBs not being written in .NET, I should have specified that the engine itself. I would be heavily surprised if hardcore apps such as Backup used .NET even for the GUI. Many developers tried this route with JAVA, as it made similar claims, only for it to be disastrous. You see many of the claims made for JAVA were very similar to what I hear today on this board with .NET. My favorite from JAVA hype was that JAVA could run faster than C++ because the JVM optimized the final code for the processor it was running on. While theoretically this may be true, I doubt anyone has ever seen this in action. Bytecode is not and will never be faster than well written C++. Only the claims will come out faster.
I want to expand my view of where .NET will go and how apps will be written.
I see that VB programmers and web designers will eventual move to .NET when writing on Windows. This alone will be over 80% of all Windows developers. Microsoft will include ways for this to happen in all of their products. They realize that that is a large portion of their current non-.NET programming base. This is a current reality. I doubt may commercial applications will be re-written in .NET just to claim they wrote it in .NET. Quicktime, Real, Quicken, SQL Server, Lotus, Any enterprise backup app, ( and most consumer ones too ) games, and most other things I would find down at CompUSA, will not be written or re-written. Most enterprise apps ( sold to companies, and not written internally ) will not be rewritten. Internal corporate apps, Internets, and shareware most likely will be the dominant market.
Apple on the other hand will find Cocoa used in all newer apps, as Carbon becomes more antiquated. The Apple platform has few options, where on Windows, there are a ton of different interfaces to write to, and nearly as many MS tweaked languages to write them in.
This is my opinion based on all the goofy crap I have seen MS do in the past, and I stand by it. If people want to read that I am saying .Net will not be successful , then I am sorry they mis-read my comments. I feel that it will only be successful in certain areas, and will not buy the bull that everything in the future will be rewritten just to say 'I wrote it in .NET'. I have heard this hype before, and I am positive I will hear it again.
For those of us who write in .NET, we can enjoy it, and apply it where applicable, and for those who write in JAVA and C++, we can write where it makes sense too.
In all honestly, this is a Mac board, and .Net is not here. When it gets here, lets talk more.
Max
P.S. MS apps I have seen on the on Mac OSX generally perform much poorer than other apps similar apps written for OSX. IE falls in the category, and I for one will not be sorry to see it leave. On Windows IE is the fastest around, and I think that both of these are by design.
Max
That doesn't mean our old version won't disappear. . .and MS would catch judicial HELL if they made stopped and made future files incompatible with the mac version. (i.e. making a patch that made all future file saves as .wmvv or a different file structure.
One thing I have to say is the same thing I said about the Windows Media Player thing: Just because it will stop being made doesn't mean that our old Version 5 will magically disappear!!!
People need to realize that we still have it. Whether in your Applications folder, in the Trash, or already deleted and only on your Software Restore CD's, we still have IT!!!
People need to realize that we still have it. Whether in your Applications folder, in the Trash, or already deleted and only on your Software Restore CD's, we still have IT!!!
Praise the Lord! IE is the most obnoxious software Microsoft has ever devised. Slow, excessively complicated, intrusive...... it simply doesn't come close to Safari, Mozilla, or even Netscape.
Just saw this article on Yahoo! news. Take a look, it's worth a read.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030614/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_macintosh_3
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030614/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_macintosh_3
i applaud Apple for bringing out Safari
According to yahoo article, M$ doesnt see any value added with IE, but Office suite makes money and continue to develop. But looks like if Apple brings out another Office package, that will be gone too. Apple saw this one coming, so they went ahead and introduced Safari, i bet next is Office Suite..may be we can see it as well in WWDC.
According to yahoo article, M$ doesnt see any value added with IE, but Office suite makes money and continue to develop. But looks like if Apple brings out another Office package, that will be gone too. Apple saw this one coming, so they went ahead and introduced Safari, i bet next is Office Suite..may be we can see it as well in WWDC.
Re: i applaud Apple for bringing out Safari
Apple has always had an office compatible package: Claris/Appleworks. It even had presentation software, before Keynote.
But that's not enough. To convince new users that their Mac is compatible with Windows with respect to office apps, you need to offer the '100% compatible' M$ Office package. Most users don't want a complicated explanation of how to make a Mac compatible with their work set-up, they want it to be visually and operationally the same. (eg type it, save it, post it)
Though there is a groundswell in office-compatible alternatives, you won't see people jumping off the Office bandwagon in droves. For that to happen M$ needs to stuff-up big time.
Apple has always had an office compatible package: Claris/Appleworks. It even had presentation software, before Keynote.
But that's not enough. To convince new users that their Mac is compatible with Windows with respect to office apps, you need to offer the '100% compatible' M$ Office package. Most users don't want a complicated explanation of how to make a Mac compatible with their work set-up, they want it to be visually and operationally the same. (eg type it, save it, post it)
Though there is a groundswell in office-compatible alternatives, you won't see people jumping off the Office bandwagon in droves. For that to happen M$ needs to stuff-up big time.
Didnt M$ make a big mistake on the net front before they got it right they nearly didnt have I.E as netscape was winning the war on browsers it was only that M$ Had cash flow the size of an affrican country to balance out the odds and take over the world. as usual thats what it comes down too Money and lots of it...
I.E is been striped from windows users mac users and anyone else who wants it .. you have to buy the new M$ longhorn for an updated verison which wont be too long away there is somthing brewing at M$ AND IT AINT GOING TO BE PRITTY........
I.E is been striped from windows users mac users and anyone else who wants it .. you have to buy the new M$ longhorn for an updated verison which wont be too long away there is somthing brewing at M$ AND IT AINT GOING TO BE PRITTY........
Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Just saw this article on Yahoo! news. Take a look, it's worth a read.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030614/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_macintosh_3
Isn't it funny how Microsoft doesn't want to develop IE anymore because Apple has better access to the Mac OS? I'm sure that's completely different than MS having better access to Windows than Netscape/AOL.
Here's one source that shows how much Safari has eaten away at IE's dominance of the Mac browser market share.
MacEdition - CodeBitch January 27th
Way back in January IE was dead in the water. Once Safari goes GM it will be included with the OS install and IE will go away.
IE was good for its time (2-3 years ago). It has since stagnated and is doing more to hold back the advancement of Mac browsing than further it. Let it go, people.
MacEdition - CodeBitch January 27th
Way back in January IE was dead in the water. Once Safari goes GM it will be included with the OS install and IE will go away.
IE was good for its time (2-3 years ago). It has since stagnated and is doing more to hold back the advancement of Mac browsing than further it. Let it go, people.
Granted, I know different browsers work differently, BUT...
Does it REALLY matter what browser you're using? I mean, theoretically, if HTML is coded correctly - it SHOULD work on everything. I KNOW this isn't always the case, and always test my websites on multiple browsers as well as windoze...
I use Safari primarily now too (far better than anything else I've tried IMHO) - and there are some problems - hopefully they'll be fixed...
I REALLY WANT a standalone browser of Mozilla or Netscape for OS X.... I haven't had any luck in finding these, even though it says there is one on the Mozilla website... I emailed them, no response... Does anyone have any suggestions?
REMEBER the article mentions no more standalone IE for windoze, either.... SOOOOOOO, it seems to me that if you're not running the latest operating system from M$, you won't be able to update your IE, right? Maybe they're getting out of the browser business? I dunno....
Does it REALLY matter what browser you're using? I mean, theoretically, if HTML is coded correctly - it SHOULD work on everything. I KNOW this isn't always the case, and always test my websites on multiple browsers as well as windoze...
I use Safari primarily now too (far better than anything else I've tried IMHO) - and there are some problems - hopefully they'll be fixed...
I REALLY WANT a standalone browser of Mozilla or Netscape for OS X.... I haven't had any luck in finding these, even though it says there is one on the Mozilla website... I emailed them, no response... Does anyone have any suggestions?
REMEBER the article mentions no more standalone IE for windoze, either.... SOOOOOOO, it seems to me that if you're not running the latest operating system from M$, you won't be able to update your IE, right? Maybe they're getting out of the browser business? I dunno....
Re: All bad...no good
Hey, that is a very bright idea. Just did that for my Safari cause I really missed that button.
Took me about 30 seconds to do so....
(drag and drop a file from the dl folder, bookmark it, edit the bookmark so that the folder opens, not the file)
Hey, that is a very bright idea. Just did that for my Safari cause I really missed that button.
Took me about 30 seconds to do so....
(drag and drop a file from the dl folder, bookmark it, edit the bookmark so that the folder opens, not the file)
Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed
well, i don't know anything about .Net - but you really shouldn' compare it to PHP.
PHP is a completely different approach to webpage programming. it is also very infirior when it comes to oop, high performance apps including memory caching, scalability... you name it.
the only thing php is really good at, is talking to mysql, and having a fairly good online documentation.
well, i don't know anything about .Net - but you really shouldn' compare it to PHP.
PHP is a completely different approach to webpage programming. it is also very infirior when it comes to oop, high performance apps including memory caching, scalability... you name it.
the only thing php is really good at, is talking to mysql, and having a fairly good online documentation.
Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
On the IE issue... if so-called "web designers" who get paid lots of money to design sites spend all their time incorporating flashy but not compliant DHTML menus that only work in one version of one browser on one operating system, they are arrogant jerks. Have you ever heard of a braille terminal or a screen reader? Blind people have NO CHOICE but to use these technologies and the web is basically inaccessable to them. If you are a web developer, do the world a favor and test for accessability and compliance. (Use PHP too!)
Also, for those still using IE to access specific sites, it might not always be that Safari can't handle the site, just that the site kicks them out. Check the Debug menu in Safari and set your useragent to Windows MSIE 6.0 and try again. Those of you using OmniWeb can change your useragent pretty easily too in the preferences.
Ugh, you program in ASP? ASP.NET? Blasphemy! I strictly code in PHP and MySQL for my web development and my web apps look great on all platforms (yes, I've tested them on Windows). PHP is a much faster, cheaper, and IMO more elegant and superior solution to web development.
On the IE issue... if so-called "web designers" who get paid lots of money to design sites spend all their time incorporating flashy but not compliant DHTML menus that only work in one version of one browser on one operating system, they are arrogant jerks. Have you ever heard of a braille terminal or a screen reader? Blind people have NO CHOICE but to use these technologies and the web is basically inaccessable to them. If you are a web developer, do the world a favor and test for accessability and compliance. (Use PHP too!)
Also, for those still using IE to access specific sites, it might not always be that Safari can't handle the site, just that the site kicks them out. Check the Debug menu in Safari and set your useragent to Windows MSIE 6.0 and try again. Those of you using OmniWeb can change your useragent pretty easily too in the preferences.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a bad news indeed
Have you ever used PHP? I doubt it, because that's blatantly not true. ASP is the language to compare to PHP. PHP can do FAR more than connect to MySQL and has OOP support (which I've used). The apps are very scalable, because of their speed. Also, ASP is proprietary, costs money, and is only supported on one operating system for servers. PHP is open source and works on most (if not all) major webservers.
no matter how you slice it, overall, the lack of IE on Mac is a bad thing for Apple. The switch campagin has a lot to say about most Windows apps on OS X, but if many are dead in the water such as Windows Media Player and IE, and probobly Office and MSN messenger, that takes a lot of the ease of switching away.
I personally dont give a rats ass about the lack of IE, but for potential switchers this is bad news. Unless Apple releases Safari for Windows and Linux and it becomes widely adopted, then IE will be the browser of choice for most users because there is nobody that's really giving IE a run for their money.
Windows media Player as far as I'm concerned is already worthless on OS X. yes it will always be here, but it doesn't support WMP9 content and things can only get worse as the OS X version continues to be ignored by the Mac BU. Same goes for the IE we have. yes it will be here, but lacks support for upcomming standards and that will effectively kill it off.
I personally dont give a rats ass about the lack of IE, but for potential switchers this is bad news. Unless Apple releases Safari for Windows and Linux and it becomes widely adopted, then IE will be the browser of choice for most users because there is nobody that's really giving IE a run for their money.
Windows media Player as far as I'm concerned is already worthless on OS X. yes it will always be here, but it doesn't support WMP9 content and things can only get worse as the OS X version continues to be ignored by the Mac BU. Same goes for the IE we have. yes it will be here, but lacks support for upcomming standards and that will effectively kill it off.
Rower_CPU - of course you are absolutely right. After I posted the comment, I thought I could have said it better. Yes, it is the standards that count. But if MS goes it alone and fudges the standards a little as some are saying in this thread - what will apple do? I think the answer is - move over PC people - get a life and get a mac.