Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0 177
An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article about Microsoft's move to rename WinFX to .Net Framework 3.0. Microsoft has also announced the availability of the beta version of the MSDN Wiki, the company's first step toward allowing customers to contribute to Microsoft's developer documentation. From the article: "It is purely a branding change, company officials said. The gist of the issue is that Microsoft has two successful developer brands in WinFX and .Net, and the company has seen 320,000 downloads of WinFX -- and 700 signed GoLive licenses -- since the December Community Technology Preview, and more than 35 million downloads of the .Net Framework since the November launch. "
Icredible (Score:5, Funny)
Vista? (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess when your product isn't good enough, you need other ways to get it sold.
Re:Vista? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or Microsoft could just give away their product for free, like other vendors who make products that aren't "good enough" to sell to the public.
Re:Icredible (Score:2)
Re:Icredible (Score:2)
Web 3.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Web 3.0 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Web 3.0 (Score:2)
They can't. But it doesn't matter anyway, now everyone's reading eDiarist 4.0 Beta...
Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:1, Insightful)
And now
Given that they're the most powerful platform vendor in the world, with the ability to force adoption of virtually any programming environment, language or library that they choose, Microsoft sure does seem to act despera
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article: "Microsoft has decided to avoid any confusion in the naming scheme for its core developer technology [...]"
Before my brain shuts down in order to protect itself and I start drooling on myself, I should say that it's one thing for tech journalists to be clueless and incoherent; it's another entirely for them to report something that's exactly the opposite of what's happening just because it's in the corporate press release.
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:5, Informative)
I think you mean version 1.1 of the .NET Framework, not 1.3. Also, we published a very detailed list of breaking changes from 1.1 to 2.0 on MSDN [microsoft.com]. We never take a breaking change lightly, every single one of these would have been reviewed with a great deal of scrutiny to ensure that we really were doing the right thing under the circumstances.
With regard to .NET 3.0 (no longer WinFX 3.0), it's the next version of the .NET Framework. As a result, it includes new features, like WPF (Avalon), WCF (Indigo), and a ton of other cool, new things. This is merely a marketing change, no more.
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you get a chance to pass along my comment (below) to someone in Microsoft's marketing department I would appreciate it.
I have largely avoided Microsoft products over the past 20 years because I couldn't easily figure out what is what. It seems like every six months or so Microsoft renames their technologies in an effort to make them sound new. The actual result (in my case anyway) has been to think "Crap! I just got through learning FOO and now they're dropping it for BAR! I'm going to forget about
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Is
I ask because this actually might impact my job and this is the first I have ever heard
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:3, Interesting)
That used to piss me off, but now I just remind myself that the more complex the API is the better. Allow me to explain my reasoning:
Take the old Win32 API for example. It is very ugly and badly designed, I'm sure not many would disagree with that. Try making a reasonably bug free u
Easy is good. (Score:2)
Great. Now everyone is w
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:3, Informative)
Hey Spry - XP should automatically ungroup those buttons when you do close other windows and make more room. I can't speak for your exact scenario, and why exactly it wouldn't be ungrouping them when sufficient room exists. I was able to find this feedback link for Windows Vista [microsoft.com]; you should put forth your thoughts there. No guarantees of a response, but it's certainly better than not submitting feedback at all. Conversely, you may want to send your thoughts on through the Email link on the Windows Ux blog [msdn.com].
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Now, I open one more app, and suddenly all the apps with multiple windows/instances collapse all their buttons into grouped buttons. UGH. Okay, so I close the app I just
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that his .sig says "Yes, I do work for Microsoft" and has done for ages, and also that his comments are generally informed and relevant, I'm not sure how you can call him a shill. :-)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course with us we were running a web server with the 1.1 framework on a 32bit server when we ran into performance issues because we were more than 1000 times the traffic we regularly get. Fortunately this was an Opteron box so we popped on 64bit Windows and the 2.0 framework since 1.1 isn't available. Everything worked without having to make a single change to any of our code.
That is not to say their aren't some funky things that won't transfer over but you speak out of just plain ignorance or prefer to focus on minor details that affect but a few people. With that said I've never had a Windows update break anyOf course this is all moot considering updates in any corporate setting don't occur automatically but after happen after approval and testing so you'll know if it'll break your app assuming you have a proper testing environment which I definitely know a few don't. Of course I don't know any development houses which don't since staging on a production server is well, you know, not wise ;)
Don't mean to be harsh but realistic here. You're gripes are completely inaccurate so if you really want to gripe go ahead and find valid gripes. I'm not sure what they would be with the framework but I'm sure there are some out there.Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
If I was your client, I wouldn't want to know that someone on the team is so smug in their lack of understanding and knowledge about the toolset I'm paying them to use. It's not a professional attitude.
Here's a hint, you're working in a services industry Your client is hiring you to perform services. They are defining the parameters of a problem and hiring you to come up with the solution.
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
As for Samba that's a poor example since since its interfacing with proprietary technology that Microsoft developed. The .Net Framework is not a proprietary standard despite what you seem to think. Also, in addition to this I seem to recall current versions of Samba work flawlessly with current Windows systems. The only times MS changes CIFS is when t
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
As for C#, it's actually a very decent language. I actually like it better than Java once I got used to it.
Sometimes it annoys me how much "magic" happens under the covers, but for the most part, it's pretty slick. And they solved th
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
MUCH more, actually. I've already mentioned most of this stuff to some other MS employee here on Slashdot the last time this subject came up, but I'm perfectly willing to repeat it here.
As far as I'm concerned, Visual Studio is worthless without ReSharper installed. It's like using stone knives and bear skins in a world where I'm used to modern conveniences. Look at Eclipse. Look at IntelliJ IDEA. Look at all the standard features that I, as a developer, have been used to for four or so y
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Thanks! Although, do bear in mind that I live in Seattle, and am on Pacific time as a result (in fact, as I post this, it's 6:45PM). I posted my original response this morning while drinking my morning cup of coffee and eating granola (I'm out of Cap'n Crunch, sadly); I'm sure there are a lot of people who take an hour or so on a Saturday morning to read through Slashdot and post comments on stories that go up. I haven't spent the entire day on Slashdot, though. I went off to a housewarming barbecue for one
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Interesting to note that the WinFX Wikipedia article is now redirecting to '.NET Framework 3.0'
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
I love how the well informed respond...
Actually,
This time they didn't change the
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
So the only reason
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Yeah, and since raster images are as complex as program source code, the analogy is perfect.
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
You might want to read "The Old New Thing" blog; it recounts many instances where developers relied on more than the APIs stated contra
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
So any API with implementation bugs can't be considered well-designed and well-written? Doesn't that rule out almost everything out there? Is there a library of comparable complexity to .Net that you believe is well-designed and well-written?
Also, part of the problem is that developers end up relying on unspecified behavior. One example (f
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
My troll-o-meter reads "probable", but I just can't help myself. Here we go again...
What's the largest piece of software you know of that is free of implementatio
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense (Score:2)
And seriously, it does make sense to align it with their
Of course
Active WinFX 3.11 for Workgroups. (Score:4, Funny)
Not News (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not News (Score:2)
Cool Aid (Score:1, Insightful)
".NET Framework has becomes the most successful developer platform in the world."
I'm going to put down my cup of coffee, pick up the cool-aid and jump right on it! Just another Microsoft developer blogger trying to market for them. And they wonder why only current customers listen.
On a related note, I thought WinFX was originally just the replacement for WinForms, the orig
Re:Cool Aid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cool Aid (Score:2)
S.O.P. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:S.O.P. (Score:2)
1) Every User on the machine that's going to use it if the database lives in their account
or
2) The machine that the database runs on if you want it to run on the machine and not in the user's account (say a server or an app on a box that several users may use)
Oh, and if your program is in java and you want to connect to an Access database with the JDBC-ODBC bridge, there's another quirk.
Re:going offtopic (Score:2)
I think my only complaint about writing prepared statements is that I have to double check to make sure I have the right number of question marks in the statement. This is no problem at all, but it does occasionally mess with you if you're tired =]
Re:S.O.P. (Score:2)
I detest this change (WinFX => .NET 3.0), as the CLR, the actual VM of the environment, hasn't changed. On the other hand, it's still fairly consistent compared to Java version numbers... I guess :-)
Re:S.O.P. (Score:2, Funny)
If you're a Linux developer you don't change the name, you just create a new distribution!
*ducks*
Re:S.O.P. (Score:2)
More confusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only this, but
Now they're bringing this same confusion to WinFX? WinFX used to be the three pillars to the new Windows API to be included in Vista, encompassing Avalon (presentation layer), Indigo (communications layer), and WinFS (metadata database for the filesystem). Then some of these pillars were dropped, and now apparently according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] there are four pillars. I'm not sure if these will still be available [about.com] for Windows XP, and where Windows 2000 stands. Not only that, but will Mono have to re-implement major parts of Windows just to be
Anyway, all this makes me wonder, what is MS trying to accomplish with this moving-target definition of WinFX and
Re:More confusing (Score:2)
MS is the spoiled child that always needs all the attention. MS will always tell customers that the next "great" version is coming. However, once that time comes, the date always slips. When was the last time MS released one of its core products on time with all promised features? MS only makes these "announcements" because they want to keep th
Re:More confusing (Score:2, Informative)
I've not seen any official word that
Re:More confusing (Score:2)
Re:More confusing (Score:2)
WCF and WPF will be backported, yes. I doubt to 2000, but definitely to XP and Server 2003.
(actually, they already have been and is downloadable if you wish to check them out)
If it's a matter of download numbers... (Score:2)
On a more serious note, I wonder if this is just the old renowned way to force something down users' throat: just one more occasion to make users agree on a if-we-blow-your-computer-you-can't-sue-us, will-send-your-private-infos-to-third-parties, your-old-programs-won't-work-after-this EULA.
Since a lot of spam I received through the ages tries to have you to download
Call it whatever. (Score:2)
Ajax is where i place my bet because it works. Ajax is being implemented by multiple sources and have shown to perform well. For the untrained eye dotnet seems like all hype and no show. A slew of marketing hype with nothing tangible in it.
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
You can use
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:1)
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
Microsoft has also released Atlas beta, which in my opinion is very elegant and effective. (It currently only works with Firefox and IE but should support everything else when it reaches 1.0)
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:1)
(of course this'll be a security update for IE6...)
Suddenly you need this Net 3.0 to view your messages just so on hotmail....
Sounds horribly familiar...
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that they decided to make their hotmail service work "better" in IE is a child of the shameful proprietary Active X web that they tried to create.
Their current approach to web client technology is based on a completely different philosophy that embraces standards.
If you study the
Not always a bad idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
But you know what? Dependencies aren't always bad. My system, like most, comes bundled with glibc. And, in a proprietary world, a virtual machine (compile once, run anywhere) makes a lot of sense, especially if you can make it as common on a Windows system as glibc is in the Unix world.
I like the idea of
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:5, Informative)
The
You don't need to download
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
Thanks for the correction, though I hope you understand that the concern of accessibility I have is valid rather than dismissing it as a troll. It cannot compete with Web 2.0, but it can enable it, as other posts as well as yours have pointed out.
Let's hope they can release something innovative.
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
I believe using the right tool for the right job. Every tool shines in a particular situation. I like Debian for database, file, print and domain servers. I like Ubuntu and SuSE for bussiness clients. I like
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
That's ironic...
You don't need to download
That's where you're wrong. While
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
About rich clients with
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
Yea "not at all", they've only allowed
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
Could you provide some links or examples please?
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
http://devcenter.infragistics.com/Articles/Articl
just googled for it right quick
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
Yes, in exactly that way
I'm not arguing it's not been done before. I'm personally making my money with JS and Flash coding, among other things.
But it also has to be noted that WinFX has the advantage if being preinstalled with Windows Vista, which is very important given how huge it is.
Flash also came with Windows 2000 and XP and I hope Microsoft cheats itself into delivering Flash 8 with Vista as well, but it's not guaranteed. Eve
Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (Score:2)
Personally, I'm not really excited about anything Microsoft is doing
Re:First post (Score:1)
Sorry, that post has a bug.
Here's "First Post v2.0"!
Re:First post (Score:2)
Windows Vista
Or, Revenge Of The Marketing Department Nerds
Pick your poison, drink up and be happy.
Re:First post (Score:1)
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:2)
How can you even compare .NET to the AJAX of "Web 2.0"?
.NET *can* do web "stuff". It has no focus specifically on asynchronous XML though, or even the web. (well, ASP.NET has, but we're talking
And how can this Slashdot article do it?
The only relationship I can see is that
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:2)
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:2)
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it's true that noone really used it for a long time, partly because it was only implemented by IE. It's also true that you can simulate asynchronous requests using hidden frames (something my company did back in 99), but that also never really took off (and probably won't now).
I think it's fair to say that MS were ahead of everyone else. I think it's also fair to say that they completely squandered their lead, sitting on a technology that they didn't have the vision to use to the full.
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:3)
Doesn't seem like it if they never used it, and you could do the same thing through other alternatives.
It's not like Microsoft invented the idea of a client-side dynamic web page before anyone else.
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:2)
Actually, hidden frame requests are still used (e.g. in Gmail), and for good reason: they don't break the back button.
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:2)
Idiot, Microsoft went from WinWord 2 to WinWord 6 to get in sync with the version number of MacWord (MacWord was introduced well before WinWord).
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:2)
I think you've have to be pretty naive to ignore what was going on with the version jump.
Re:This could represent a step forward (Score:2)
The MSDN documentation is lacking, but it exists. I don't think the developer base ignores it. But there are numerous sites already devoted to dev-level sharing (code exchange, the o'reilly pages, etc).
MS already has too many channels for information sharing (TV productions, podcasts, engineer/team blogs, forums, help pages, etc).
It would be nice if they consolidated, and improved the partitions of the information. MS has long been neglecting their help-searching algorithms. If t
Re:This could represent a step forward (Score:2)
Search is crap but the content is not so bad (Score:2, Informative)
But once you found the right article, it tends to be OK. Actually Google can help you there, the chance that it points you to a useful MSDN article is better than using the search function on microsoft.com.
Re:This could represent a step forward (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This could represent a step forward (Score:3, Informative)
The search at the MSDN is nearly useless. It needs to be completely redone. Half the time I am looking for something on the MSDN I have to Google it.
It has one of the worst search algorithms I've ever seen. Whoever came up with it should be fired and replaced.
Re:This could represent a step forward (Score:2)
The search at the MSDN is nearly useless.
Not just the search, even if you know where on MSDN to find the information you are looking for, it is next to impossible to navigate. Clicking on "Platform SDK" in this list of topics [microsoft.com] takes you to some legal bullshit page in the preface for that manual, with no interesting child nodes and seemingly no way out other than the back button. Until one day you figure out by accident that clicking the "Up One Level" link takes you not back to the main list of topics, b
Re:now is the .NET 3.0 MS was working on become 4. (Score:2)
You're referring to LINQ, right? LINQ is part of the 3.5 stack (previously called WinFX 3.5, and now, I assume, .NET FX 3.5), as described in this chat on MSDN [microsoft.com].
Mads Torgersen[MSFT] (Expert): Q: This is a repeat in case it got lost: Can you give us a sense of the timing on working with C# 3 vs WinFX? If I were writing a book on each, which shoudl come first, and to what degree is one dependent on the other?
A: WinFX 3.0 is a Windows Vista timeframe release. We then release WinFX 3.5 which contains the LIN