Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 8: .NET Versus HTML5 Metro App Development

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-fence-me-in dept.

Windows 179

An anonymous reader writes "Will Microsoft take advantage of .NET's Java-like CIL and allow .NET code to run on Windows 8, or force developers to switch to HTML5 Metro apps instead for porting apps to Windows 8? This article brings up important insights into both paradigms' advantages and disadvantages, and even correlates the options with Microsoft's past NT-era support of MIPS and PPC, as well as Windows CE's way of supporting embedded architectures."

cancel ×

179 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Idiot (-1, Redundant)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349599)

This guy is a complete moron. First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL. Second, it's called the Windows Runtime or WinRT and it runs .NET apps and HTML5/js apps. This is all quite plain to anyone that has even a tiny understanding of the system. This architecture diagram [devexpress.com] has been posted for quite some time, and clearly shows C# and VB as well as C/C++ apps running under WinRT/Metro.

Re:Idiot (1, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349621)

This guy is a complete moron. First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL.

Perhaps not as compete as some...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Intermediate_Language [wikipedia.org]

Re:Idiot (2, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349649)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Infrastructure [wikipedia.org]

He was referring to the VM and portability in the article, not the bytecode language itself.

Re:Idiot (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349675)

If Microsoft does not port the .NET runtime to Windows 8 on ARM, allowing apps compiled from C#/VB/C++ to CIL to execute on either supported hardware platform [...]

Sounds like he was.

Re:Idiot (1)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349743)

I have to agree, it sounds like that guy was indeed talking about Microsoft writing a VM for CIL as oppose to any VM in general or specifically.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349659)

I think he's confusing it with the CLR, which does the JIT compilation of the CIL. And I've heard it referred to (less lazily) as the "intermediate runtime language", which would be IRL. O_o

Alphabet Madness!

Re:Idiot (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349823)

Now who's the idiot? CLR is a calcium, lime, and rust cleaner. It doesn't compile anything!

Re:Idiot (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350463)

I think he's confusing it with the CLR, which does the JIT compilation of the CIL. And I've heard it referred to (less lazily) as the "intermediate runtime language", which would be IRL. O_o

Alphabet Madness!

Takes me back to the days when MS switched from ADO to DAO ... or was it the other way around?

Re:Idiot (1)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349753)

So who loves TLA's?

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349809)

Umm, WinRT will NOT run .net apps. You can write apps for WinRT (a COM based API) in various languages such as C# or VB.net but it compiles to native, it has nothing to do with .net. If you're gonna be a giant douche and calling names you better know what you are talking about..

Re:Idiot (1)

terjeber (856226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350595)

You sure?

This seems to suggest otherwise [msdn.com] - quote: "Metro style apps in the Windows Store can support both WOA and Windows 8 on x86/64. Developers wishing to target WOA do so by writing applications for the WinRT"

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349865)

You know, it's strange how I react to articles like this.

For example, I feel kind of bad for the guy who wrote and submitted the article. The author is writing about things that it appears he doesn't understand, and after reading the article I just feel sad.

But at the same time, I don't feel bad for timothy at all. He posts useless crap again and again, and he can't be bothered to proofread at all. After reading anything by timothy, I just feel mad and annoyed.

It's funny that two cognitively challenged individuals provoke such different reactions in me.

Re:Idiot (4, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350027)

"This guy is a complete moron. First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL."

No it's not. CIL is the Common Intermediate Language, it is .NET's bytecode format, that is part of the CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) and runs on top of the CLR (Common Language Runtime). The CIL is important for portability as it is effectively the abstraction layer that separates the actual code, from the underlying architecture. The CLR then acts as an architecture specific implementation to execute that bytecode on the architecture in question.

"Second, it's called the Windows Runtime or WinRT and it runs .NET apps and HTML5/js apps."

Just to clarify, as someone responding to you didn't seem to quite get it, it doesn't run existing .NET apps, that's done elsewhere. It does allow you to write new apps utilising parts of the .NET toolset however.

Despite this, I agree, the guy is indeed a complete moron writing an article about something he generally doesn't really seem to get.

Re:Idiot (1)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350137)

Nowhere in the article did I say that CIL executes anything. Every instance of CIL was meant to refer to the intermediate bytecode itself, which can be JIT compiled by a virtual machine (the CLR everyone here who clearly did not comprehend the article thinks I'm confusing it for). Re-read the article carefully, keeping this in mind, and I might not appear as stupid as everyone here believes me to be regarding a subject that they themselves must not completely understand.

Re:Idiot (1)

NightLamp (556303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351239)

Early on in the article you used the phrase "the HTML5 Metro interface" this is a misnomer and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the platform as a whole. Metro is not HTML5 however you may write a Metro Style App in HTML5+JavaScript (are we just saying HTML5 now?). In addition you may write a Metro Style App (all of which will work on ARM) using C# and a subset of .NET through the Metro CLR, or in C++.

The only unknown is whether or not Microsoft will eventually port the Desktop CLR to ARM. It has not been announced for the release however one must consider that it may happen at some point in the future.

You may read this article [wintellect.com] to obtain a better understanding of an (admittedly confusing) situation.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40351117)

I agree. Far from being dead Java is alive and well on Android and while possible developing native C/C++ apps for Android is quite awkward. In my view Microsoft is attempting to cover all the basis: Proprietary enhancements to C++ like Apple's Objective-C to provide the illusion of portability, a more advanced (no flames) language like Google's Java and the "universal" JavaScript. This approach smells like the horse designed by a committee, a compromise among the various factions inside of Microsoft. In any case the article is complete drivel.

Re:Idiot (5, Interesting)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350051)

This guy is a complete moron. First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL. Second, it's called the Windows Runtime or WinRT and it runs .NET apps and HTML5/js apps. This is all quite plain to anyone that has even a tiny understanding of the system. This architecture diagram [devexpress.com] has been posted for quite some time, and clearly shows C# and VB as well as C/C++ apps running under WinRT/Metro.

Hi, I'm the "complete moron" who wrote the article. I most definitely meant CIL and not CLI, as I was referring to the Common Intermediate Language, and not the Command Line Interface. One is used to interact with an operating system through mostly text (curses and cursor-based terminal graphics being a stark exception), and the other allows multiple human-written programming languages to be compiled to a common bytecode form for interpretation by a .NET virtual machine runtime, and the basis of this article was that the same VM can be ported to Windows 8 on ARM in place of Metro apps. And your diagram does not clearly note anywhere that it is valid for Windows 8 on ARM as it is for x86/x86-64. Next time, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions and throw the words "moron" and "idiot" around. Thank you in advance.

Re:Idiot (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350281)

He didn't mean Command Line Interface.

Common Language Infrastructure [wikipedia.org]

The Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) is an open specification developed by Microsoft and standardized by ISO[1] and ECMA[2] that describes the executable code and runtime environment that form the core of the Microsoft .NET Framework and the free and open source implementations Mono and Portable.NET. The specification defines an environment that allows multiple high-level languages to be used on different computer platforms without being rewritten for specific architectures.

Complete moron still applies, I think.

Re:Idiot (2)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350445)

Don't confuse "specification" with "implementation." Nowhere in the article is Mono mentioned, as it is a non-Microsoft application of the CLI specification. I was specifically referring to Microsoft-published software, and as mentioned above in a separate thread, I was correct in referring to the bytecode (CIL) with respect to how it can be interpreted by a Microsoft VM on either architecture. Obvious by my confusion with the command-line, I wasn't even aware there was an approved specification for .NET's VM (or any Microsoft product, for that matter). But regardless of whether it's standardized for all to use or not, the article focuses on Microsoft. Even if it were not standardized they could continue to publish VMs on their own platform as far as I'm aware.

I hate Slashdot sometimes.

Re:Idiot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40351413)

Don't confuse "specification" with "implementation." Nowhere in the article is Mono mentioned, as it is a non-Microsoft application of the CLI specification. I was specifically referring to Microsoft-published software, and as mentioned above in a separate thread, I was correct in referring to the bytecode (CIL) with respect to how it can be interpreted by a Microsoft VM on either architecture. Obvious by my confusion with the command-line, I wasn't even aware there was an approved specification for .NET's VM (or any Microsoft product, for that matter). But regardless of whether it's standardized for all to use or not, the article focuses on Microsoft. Even if it were not standardized they could continue to publish VMs on their own platform as far as I'm aware.

I hate Slashdot sometimes.

the reason you hate slashdot is because a group of technical people call you out on things that you made mistakes on in your article, you then post replies which confirm you have no idea what your talking about, rather than hating i would suggest reading what they write. you may learn something.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350509)

Next time, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions and throw the words "moron" and "idiot" around.

Nah, he pretty much had the right idea, I'd say.

"Command Line Interface"? Really?

Re:Idiot (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351057)

>Hi, I.. wrote the article.

I am sorry but your article is full of very misleading information. First of all, you keep referring to WinRT apps as HTML5 Metro apps. Metro or WinRT have absolutely nothing to do with HTML5, except that they *can* be developed in HTML5/CSS/JS. Most Metro WinRT apps will probably be written in XAML on top of VB.NET/C#/C++/C. What have they got to do with HTML5?

I see no mention of WinRT in the whole article, that is what is leading to all the confusion in the comments, because WinRT is the underpinning dev platform for the new Windows 8 apps. That,combined with needless acronym(without expansion) throwing makes it hard to take the article seriously. What are all these great existing .NET CIL apps that "Microsoft must absolutely enable porting or shoot themselves in the foot" ?

Acronyms be darned (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350983)

.NET has a command-line interface? Maybe I can program that thing with bash...

PowerShell is the cmd-line interface of .NET (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350997)

.NET has a command-line interface?

It's called PowerShell [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Idiot (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351213)

This guy is a complete moron. First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL

What teh hell might cause such moronity, I wonder?

Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (4, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349601)

as the article suggests, to port .Net apps to the ARM architecture. Arm-twisting both ways in the Wintel duopoly, first it was the turn of MS, now it's Intel's turn.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

SlashRdr (557811) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349689)

Huh? Microsoft doesn't need Intel to port .Net apps. .Net applications are MSIL code and should work for for any platform they have a byte-code compiler for, including ARM. Microsoft has had .Net running on ARM devices (Compact Framework) for 10 years. Here's a real article from Microsoft outlining development for ARM. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jasonz/archive/2012/06/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-developing-for-windows-on-arm-woa.aspx [msdn.com]

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349721)

I was referring to pre-existing aka legacy apps being able to run on ARM. It appears Intel has prevented MS from enabling that:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/15/sinofsky_windows8_arm_support_x86_apps/ [theregister.co.uk]

It is going to take many many years for developers, developers and developers to develop brand new apps for the ARM platform, and MS is making it more and more unattractive for those inclined.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349799)

Fine. You mentioned "porting .Net apps" so I thought that was what you were referring to. Intel hasn't prevented Microsoft from doing anything. Native apps like the article you linked won't work if they have native Win32 calls, however with an up-to-date Visual Studio it could be compiled to ARM with a compiler switch if any native Win32 calls are replaced. Most business applications shouldn't have many low level OS calls, so I wouldn't think it would be impossibly time consuming, certainly not "many many" years.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351025)

if any native Win32 calls are replaced

Which would mean rewriting the entire view layer from using Win32 controls to using WinRT controls. Porting an application from Windows XP/Vista/7 to Windows RT would need roughly the same amount of effort as porting an application from Windows to Mac OS X, from Windows to X11/Linux, from Windows to iOS, or from Windows to Android. I will grant, however, that it wouldn't be quite as much effort as porting an application to Silverlight to run it on Windows Phone 7.

Most business applications shouldn't have many low level OS calls

You mean like the OS calls to open a window and draw things to it?

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350663)

Just proving once again old Sinofsky doesn't have a damned clue and Win 8 is gonna suuuuuck, WOA was a good name because WOA is it gonna blow.

In the end there is a damned good reason, a few actually, while Apple could pull this kinda stuff off and MSFT can't. 1.-When Apple switched from PPC to X86 they were switching to an arch that was powerful enough they could have emulation without a severe penalty. this is the opposite of what MSFT is facing, where the best ARM chips simply can't compete with a modern X86 in terms of performance so emulation would probably be roughly the speed of a Pentium II, not good enough to be useful. 2.-Frankly there wasn't nearly as huge a market for third party programs at Apple, many of the most popular programs being built by Apple itself. Again the opposite of MSFT, where other than office frankly all of the software, we are talking millions of programs, are made by third parties that will most likely completely ignore WOA for the much much larger X86 base. 3.-Finally with iOS Apple made it clear it was NOT OSX, and made sure to keep the branding separate between their desktop and mobile OSes. Again the exact opposite of the fucking retarded move by Sinofsky and Ballmer of using the Windows name on WinRT, which will mimic Win 8 X86 right down to the dumbass metro UI. this will of course in all likelihood cause a MASSIVE amount of consumer backlash, as the average consumer don't know ARM from arm&hammer so will simply look and go "hey a tablet with Windows! I can run my stuff!" and when they get it home and find out they can't they WILL return it. I saw this first hand over the holiday with a local retailer selling "Windows tablets" that had WinCE clearly listed on the box but the consumer saw a WinXP desktop and believed it actually run windows.

All in all the more info we receive about Win 8 the bigger the stench of failure that comes wafting up from it. The ARM version won't run X86, the X86 won't run ARM, so right there every damned dev will have to build two of everything, its UI is NOT intuitive or discoverable, as you can see from this video [youtube.com] which I can tell you from the Win 8 CP running in the shop is a pretty typical user session with Win 8, and by both reusing the Windows name AND the metro UI they expect consumers to know the difference between arches and to know they can no longer trust their eyes but instead like WinCE look for a label they most likely won't understand if they were staring right at it.

I'm so glad that other than the test bed in the shop me and my family will be sticking to Win 7, because i have the feeling for a year and a half i'm gonna be wiping this damned thing for 7 like I wiped Vista for XP. I have to wonder if the reason Sinofsky, who was never really in the spotlight that much before, is being shoved out there now is to be the fall guy for Ballmer when this thing bombs? Let us just hope that sooner or later the board gets tired of the monkey wiping his ass with billions and they fire his ass, because frankly this is gone past funny and into sad, hell even the pepsi guy at Apple wasn't this pathetic as CEO.

Pentium II is enough (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351055)

emulation would probably be roughly the speed of a Pentium II, not good enough to be useful.

I don't understand. Would emulation be "roughly the speed of a Pentium II", or would it be "not good enough to be useful"? A lot of applications spend most of their time in operating system calls, be they drawing something on the screen, blocking on the network, or blocking on the user. These would run natively. So I don't see how emulation comparable to a Pentium II would be too slow to be useful, especially for "that one app" whose absence keeps the user off the platform entirely (as long as it's not a game).

the average consumer don't know ARM from arm&hammer

AMD's older CPUs were codenamed "Hammer", and now AMD is partnering with ARM.

i have the feeling for a year and a half i'm gonna be wiping this damned thing for 7

Once this UEFI Secure Boot thing ramps up over the coming years, it will no longer be possible to wipe a computer for another operating system. One already can't do so on game consoles without a jailbreak of questionable legality, and one can't do so on the Windows RT tablets because of how Microsoft requires manufacturers to configure UEFI.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (4, Interesting)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349859)

First the Compact Framework is crap and pretty limited in comparison to what WinRT is suppose to offer. So I dare say (and this is me just guessing so don't take it as the honest truth, because what do I know?) that developers are going to want to target the option that has the most options with the most platforms, and thus they are going to really look at WinRT (ARM and Wintel + most options in common compared to everything else) as opposed to CF.

Don't get me wrong CF will still have a lot of uses. Just not consumer based, CF will become mostly a industry thing, much like Java has become (the platform, not the language).

Second, legacy applications are going to have a pretty rough transition and the desktop version of Windows 8 is suppose to be there and help this out. This is why I think tablet Win8 is dumb. We all know that it is going to take a lot of time before vendors can really bring their wares to WinRT, most likely some won't make the jump at all. That's always going to put a divide between desktop and tablet. That's going to make their unified concept look mighty dumb. I hate to say it, in fact if you see me you can have a free punch, but Apple is correct. Desktops and Tablets are different and need different platforms. WinRT will make developers fume with anger as they find that they want to target as many people as they can but suddenly they can't find parity with tablet and desktop Windows versions. Developers are going to ask, why even have this unified looking OS to begin with?!

I know for a fact that native isn't dead. I think the better way to state it is, native isn't consumer anymore. I think any tech company that forgets this has doomed themselves. Business is still going to need (if not in fact demand) native code. I think tablet focuses heavily on consumer, and aiming the OS to be tablet and desktop second is aiming the OS to be consumer. XP was such a great hit because it aimed at business first and brought some consumer added features. It was build on NT which was the "business" OS, it had business features with friendly polish.

In the end I think that tablet has been blown out of the water. Desktop isn't dead, neither is native code, but with more and more non-tech users moving onto the Internet and using computers, there has been a growing demand for consumer friendly devices. The tablet has the right mix to be this, but let's face it, it was a big uh-oh to think Joe six pack needed a full blown out computer. However consumers and businesses are all going to need stuff for consumers to consume, that's your desktops, that's your native code. That stuff isn't going anywhere, it's just not hot at the moment.

That' why I say that WinRT is going to be the target for most on Win8 and it's going to fail hardcore for legacy applications. CF is just another niche thing that Microsoft will eventually kill off, just like Silverlight (yeah I know they didn't kill it but have come as close to it as they can.) The fact that most vendors are going to be hitting native and WinRT for most of their products is going to make this whole unified Win8 think look dumb in the end. Also, the fear that Microsoft may very well kill off the Metro thing too at some point if they get bored with it. I wouldn't put it pass them, that if they see Win8 becoming a flop, that this whole Win8 fiasco disappears come Win9.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

SlashRdr (557811) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350127)

Yes, CF isn't wonderful. I just mentioned it to indicate it wouldn't be hard to get the full version of .Net running on ARM. The metro interface is a good way to have something shiny and "new" looking to sell copies of Windows 8 and their newer phones. I don't think people will be forced to write metro apps to have a business app that runs on top of windows 8. I haven't tried out their new SDK to confirm it though.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350719)

its got nothing to do with technical reasons, everything will be driven by the business at MS, and currently they seem to be reducing their fractured development teams by consolidating them all around a single platform runtime - WinRT.

So, expect WinPhone 8 to be built on the same (cut down) codebase as Window s8, and all new phone apps to require WinRT.

What that means for native v .net development, WinRT is entirely native, and MS has noticed that native code sucks less resources and goes faster than managed, so expect to see a lot more native in the future. So, assuming all the above, does it make sense for MS to support .NET on ARM? Probably not. It'll be a lot of expense to support something that they are already beginning to push towards legacy status.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (3, Insightful)

oiron (697563) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350179)

Tell me, how do you use Javascript to write a fast, efficient signal processing application? How do you write 3D graphics in HTML5?

Native is still consumer; you still need fast, close-to-hardware work for many things like image processing (iPhoto), audio processing (look at all the people raving about garage band on the iPad), games and the like. If anything, the "enterprise" is the one who doesn't need native. Who needs SSE and OpenCL for a billing application, email or even displaying a presentation? Write that in HTML5 + JS or whatever, your users wouldn't notice.

Your basic point is correct, but I think you stressed it too much. Native code isn't going anywhere, and if anything, it's going to get even hotter. It'll be for the superstar apps like Photoshop and Blender. Your flashlight apps and Yet Another Calculator are going to run on the interpreter. What's over is the days of 200 lines of COM gibberish to write Hello World. That was an avoidable fiasco which they're trying to correct in all kinds of ways now.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350459)

How do you write 3D graphics in HTML5?

WebGL, but good luck finding a browser that supports it.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350491)

chrome?

Good luck finding Google Chrome for Windows RT (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351113)

WebGL, but good luck finding a browser that supports it.

chrome?

Good luck finding Google Chrome for Windows RT. From this article [eweek.com] : "Microsoft says IE will be the only browser choice in devices running Windows RT, the variation of Windows 8 designed for devices running ARM processors."

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

aaron552 (1621603) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350501)

how do you use Javascript to write a fast, efficient signal processing application?

Audio Data Library [mozilla.org]

How do you write 3D graphics in HTML5?

WebGL [wikipedia.org]

things like image processing

Aviary [aviary.com]

HTML5 and JavaScript is pretty damn fast these days, it even outpaces Flash in some areas.

There's even a x86 emulator written in JavaScript. Sure it's not as fast as native, but these apps are not particularly latency-sensitive (arguably an audio library is the most timing-sensitive). Sure, native is faster, but who really uses native code (assembly) outside the codec, compiler or embedded spaces anymore?. Everything else is just differing layers of abstraction.

IE (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351115)

WebGL

When will Internet Explorer for Windows RT support WebGL or the other APIs that you mentioned?

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350505)

Tell me, how do you use Javascript to write a fast, efficient signal processing application?

These guys [mozilla.org] show real-time 2-D FFT. Admittedly, the combination of SSE/AVX and multi-threading/multi-core would have provided a 30x speedup, but I've been playing around with real-time 2D graphics in JavaScript and have been amazed at its performance. I was even guilty of premature optimization -- I started out coding for double-buffering the graphics with two Canvases and ended up throwing out the double-buffering because with just one Canvas there was no flicker.

On today's processors, Javascript will be "fast enough" for many applications. E.g., I do scientific software for a living, and I'm partitioning the work into what has to be done natively -- mostly the acquisition and crunching of tens of gigabytes of data at a time -- vs. what can be done cross-platform -- the final post-processing of tens of megabytes of pre-processed data.

How do you write 3D graphics in HTML5?

WebGL [wikipedia.org]

Now, from the GP:

Desktops and Tablets are different and need different platforms

I don't see desktops and tablets as further apart from each other as desktop browsers are from smartphone browsers, yet website developers target both of those with HTML.

Business is still going to need (if not in fact demand) native code. I think tablet focuses heavily on consumer, and aiming the OS to be tablet and desktop second is aiming the OS to be consumer.

Why? I see tablet as the new clipboard in business. Any business that involves an actual atoms-based product or service (as opposed to a bit-based cube farm) involves "walking around" where tablets nee clipboards are needed.

I was initially excited about the UI design philosophy of Win8 Metro. But then I realized that HTML5 can do 95% of what Metro can, and also be truly cross-platform.

I see HTML5 as the cross-platform holy grail that developers have been seeking since the WORA days of Java 15 years ago. First it was supposed to be Java, then Microsoft embraced and extinguished it, and besides it had too big of a footprint download (and a clumsy download process to boot). Then Flash was supposed to be the universal small-footprint. It was just about to take off, then Apple extinguished it by not supporting it at all (completely skipping the "embracing" step). Then Microsoft finally decided to stop holding back .NET from web development -- the purpose for which it seemingly was originally designed but never delivered upon until Silverlight. But by then Windows market share was too small for Microsoft to force a Windows-only solution on the web world.

HTML5 is W3C standard. It's not Sun. It's not Adobe. It's not Microsoft. It's W3C.

HTML5 is the holy grail.

M$ has not announced any plans to support WebGL (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351135)

These guys show real-time 2-D FFT.

How well does that demonstration work in Internet Explorer?

WebGL

From the article you linked: "Microsoft has not announced any plans to support WebGL". So provided I'm not missing anything, one would first have to implement WebGL as a software renderer in JavaScript, much like the other "shims" that add missing DOM features to IE.

Re:M$ has not announced any plans to support WebGL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40351367)

Chrome frame. Fuck Microsoft.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350743)

I agree with MOST of what you posted except the bit about Joe sixpack. As a guy who actually builds and sells to Joe I can tell that the ones buying tablets? Yeah they usually have a desktop AND a laptop which is where all these "the death of the desktop!" pundits are royally fucking up. they see the X86 numbers but don't understand what they mean, when in reality the tablet has taken a different niche, its used to poke at a screen during the commercial to look something up, or as a portable PMP.

The thing all these pundits and apparently MSFT doesn't seem to understand is thus: For Joe the PC went past "good enough" and into "insanely overpowered" several years ago and with solid caps and a little TLC frankly the things just don't die so they just aren't getting replaced constantly like cell phones are. Hell I have customers i support that are using 5+ year old laptops and first gen dual core desktops, are they poor? Nope they just don't see a point in replacing a machine that frankly they aren't even stressing. I just recently talked my doc into letting me find him a nice netbook because he didn't like the weight of his laptop, it was going on 7 years and had had 2 batteries since he bought it, now the old one is a kitchen nettop for his wife.

The problem is MSFT and the OEMs got spoiled during the MHz wars and thought the 3 year cycle would last forever, but as i see everyday there are a TON of people still using Pentium Ds and Athlon X2s that are fricking 7 years old simply because they can't even stress these old chips out and the machines they are in simply aren't dying. the giant fuckup MSFT is making is by coming in too late into the ARM game and trying to use the Windows UI and name to shove their way in. this is the same dumbshit move they made for damned near a decade with WinCE which was a big fail and it'll be a big fail again.

You are right that businesses (no AD support, WTF?) and legacy apps are seriously gonna hurt them but I'd argue what is gonna hurt them worse is the very market they are badly attempting to target, the consumers, as they simply aren't giving them any reasons to choose WinRT over iPad and Android. What they SHOULD have done is left the desktop alone, maybe added a few bells and whistles but that's it, and instead focused the Metro UI on ONLY tablets and phones and moreover give the consumer a reason to buy them. For example made it incredibly simple for someone like my dad to remote in to his desktop at work on a WinRT pad at home if he needed to check some figures, and tried to make Windows 8 + WinRT + Xbox 360/720 as seamless and "push one button and it works" as much as possible. Instead using Win 8 CP at the shop frankly the ONLY nice thing I can say is "maybe it'll be nice on a cell phone" which is NOT what you want your customers thinking when they use your flagship desktop OS, and now that I know the ARM apps won't work on x86 anymore than the x86 will work on ARM I have even less of a reason to buy a WinRT anything..

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (5, Insightful)

liamoshan (1283930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350089)

This Slashdot submission must hail from bizzarro world:

The summary is concise and has decent grammar

The blog post it links to raises interesting questions without shoving a viewpoint down your throat

It mentions Microsoft, but has no kneejerk M$ bashing

The blog post it links to has no ads!
What has happened to the real Slashdot?

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350461)

Welcome to Earth-2.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand... (1)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350775)

> What has happened to the real Slashdot?

Yeah, I find the combination of AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and WTF? Rewriter extensions surreal too.

Re:Intel will not allow MS a free hand...or vagina (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350093)

Intel will not allow MS a free hand... or vagina.

No brainer (-1, Troll)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349607)

.NET of course.

They haven't extended HTML5 enough to stop it being portable yet. How will they lock users in?

Re:No brainer (3, Interesting)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349635)

While it is true, Microsoft may just be hoping for a foot in at this point. HTML5 is touted as the one stop shop to port an app to Android, IOS and windows. Microsoft is entering the mobile phone war late in the game and way behind, interchangeability at this stage of the game is a plus for them. They just need plans to mess that up late in the game if they take the lead.

Re:No brainer (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349683)

They wont do that. Microsoft is no longer the leader. IE is a great example as IE 6 lockin lost. As a result it no longer sucks as IE 9 is ok, and IE 10 is quite competitive with Goole, Apple, and Mozilla as one of the most standard compliant browsers ever.

Therefore they are the good guys now just like Apple used to be before owning hte smartphone market and tablet and turning more evil than MS ever was.

If MS keeps losing they will have to compete with product quality and supporting standards and be friendly towards users. I hope to see MS do some more marketshare just so we have more competition. If Google decides that Andriod is too much of a patent liability and decides to let Apple use Google's services in exchange they leave the market we ARE FUCKED. IOS would be the next Dos/Windows for the next few decades. Would we want that?

I know we have issues with trust but to be honest how can I trust anyone else? Corporations supposed to follow the users needs and wants and when it is a free market this happens and they must correct themselves or die.

Re:No brainer (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349795)

As a result it no longer sucks as IE 9 is ok, and IE 10 is quite competitive with Goole, Apple, and Mozilla as one of the most standard compliant browsers ever.

IE9 was competitive when it came out as well. Some time soon IE10 will have a feature freeze and nothing much will happen until IE11.

Re:No brainer (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349847)

That is great for the corps and the users. Anual updates beats 6 weeks and intranet developers need to certify which browsers they support.

Re:No brainer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349853)

They wont do that. Microsoft is no longer the leader. IE is a great example as IE 6 lockin lost. As a result it no longer sucks as IE 9 is ok, and IE 10 is quite competitive with Goole, Apple, and Mozilla as one of the most standard compliant browsers ever.

Therefore they are the good guys now just like Apple used to be before owning hte smartphone market and tablet and turning more evil than MS ever was.

They still do some evil things, like putting a patent tax on Android. After a long period of consistent bad behaviour I need quite a long period of consistent good behaviour before I see them as good guys.

I know we have issues with trust but to be honest how can I trust anyone else? Corporations supposed to follow the users needs and wants and when it is a free market this happens and they must correct themselves or die.

I don't trust others either. Nowadays corporations seem to act as if they are supposed to follow their shareholders needs before anything else, effectively turning shareholders into customers and customers into production resources. If shareholders are customers corporations sell money for money. You can't base an economy on that, money becomes meaningless. It's not as black-and-white as this, of course, but in my perception the economic and financial crises we've seen in recent years have a lot to do with detaching the economy from reality in this way too much.

Re:No brainer (5, Insightful)

slack_justyb (862874) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349895)

Um, no. I don't know of any other JS engine that implements the WinRT namespace. The Chakra JS engine is what will separate any browser from being able to run Metro apps. A metro app isn't a web app, it is important that people understand this. Even though the two are written in the same language, they are not the same thing. Just like Java applets and Android apps are two very different things, they are both written in the same language, Java.

So yeah, Microsoft can still use HTML5 to lock in people into their product, so long as the HTML targets Metro and not the web. Granted it *might* make it easier for one to port from Metro to Web and that's exactly what Microsoft is trying to sell. I don't know how exactly true that is however. But HTML+JS for Metro and HTML+JS for Web are two different things with the same language. Pass it on.

Re:No brainer (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350071)

Well, plus HTMM5 _sucks_ to develop in compared to .NET.

What's the better choice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349617)

Because Microsoft will do the exact opposite.

A question? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349643)

Will Microsoft allow .Net to run on Windows 8?!??! Are you seriously asking this? The answer is a resounding YES for so many obvious reasons that it seems ridiculous to even respond to this.

Re:A question? (0)

jkrise (535370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349685)

Not so ridiculous. For context, please read this article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/15/sinofsky_windows8_arm_support_x86_apps/ [theregister.co.uk]

If the .Net runtime is ported to ARM, then X86 apps will compile and run on ARM as well - which is precisely what MS has said they will NOT be doing.

Reading the entire article suggests that Intel had a big hand to play in this decision of MS, which is why I suggested arm-twisting in my earlier post.

Re:A question? (4, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349719)

WinRT includes a .NET runtime. Yes, on ARM. It's a subset of .NET 4.5 (same subset metro on x86 has). There is no "if they port it". It's ported.

And no, porting the .net runtime does not mean x86 apps will compile and run on ARM, although almost any app written entirely in a high level language should, unless it depends on byte ordering or some other factor that is x86 specific.

Re:A question? (1)

nateman1352 (971364) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351519)

While we are on the subject of Metro applications and traditional application development languages... As many others have pointed out, native code is not dead. If anything, WinRT represents a revival of native code. Microsoft has created a new language called C++/CX for WinRT just for the purpose of writing native code Metro applications. Metro applications written in C++/CX use the same APIs as Metro .Net applications, this has never been the case for desktop applications. This is the first time in over 10 years that native code developers have enjoyed feature parity with managed code developers on the Windows platform.

Re:A question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349985)

.NET MF supports ARM, I don't see it being so much of a leap they'll support the full runtime on ARM given that they want to dive head first into that platform. This whole article is ridiculous.

Re:A question? (3, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350277)

If the .Net runtime is ported to ARM, then X86 apps will compile and run on ARM as well

This statement makes nothing even slightly resembling sense. .NET and x86 have absolutley nothing to do with eachother. Programs writtten for the .NET framework compile to Common Intermediate Language, which is architecture-independent (similar to Java bytecode). Programs written for x86 are, obviously, x86-specific, and will not run on a CPu with a different instruction set architecture, such as ARM.

The .NET runtime has already boon ported to ARM anyhow. First of all, both Windows Mobile and Windows Phone have .NET components, and both run on ARM (for that matter, so does the Zune HD, which is also programmable using C# and a subset of .NET). Parts of "big Windows" (Win8, in this case) use .NET, so even if it's not available to third-party developers, you can bet that WinRT includes .NET, and Windows RT runs on ARM.

Finally, and stupidest of all, Microsoft has already published the build tools for Win8 Metro-style apps, which will run on all Win8 systems including ARM (Windows RT) ones. These apps are written against the "WinRT" API (not the same as "Windows RT", which refers specifically to "Win8 on ARM"). WinRT is natively a C++ API, but it *already* has .NET bindings and it's perfectly possible, even today, to write Metro-style apps using .NET languages. In fact, this has been possible for months...

Re:A question? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350489)

Your entire post makes no sense. .NET and X86 have no relation in the context your using them. The article is also completely irrelevant in the discussion on hand. .NET HAS been ported to ARM and this has been known for quite some time, so not sure why the idiotic blog/article exists. But regardless of this fact x86 apps still WON'T run on the ARM platform. .NET enables you to write CPU architecture agnostic code so you can compile to the platform, it does not allow you to run x86 on ARM.

Re:A question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350625)

If the .Net runtime is ported to ARM, then X86 apps will compile and run on ARM as well - which is precisely what MS has said they will NOT be doing.

What do you mean "if"? If .Net wasn't supposed to be ported to ARM, someone better notify the WindowsPhone7 guys so they can un-port .Net.

Re:A question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40351385)

This isn't about whether or not .Net will run on ARM. It is about which assemblies end up on the ARM WIn8. And MS says it is just exposing WinRT assemblies (not WPF, not Compact, etc) to ARM development. .Net is platform agnostic by design.
Instead of quoting the friggin' Register, I will instead quote Jason Zander, who actually works for MS on the VS.Net team:
"The process of engineering for ARM was different for each language (JavaScript, C++, and C#/VB), based on existing implementation details of the various runtimes and compilers.

JavaScript uses a JIT compiler, so platform targeting is taken care of at runtime. Therefore Metro style apps using JavaScript are platform neutral, and you can write once to run on x86/x64/ARM.

C# and Visual Basic are also abstracted from hardware differences. They compile to MSIL, which is platform neutral. Therefore, Metro style apps using C# or Visual Basic can be compiled once to run on x86/x64/ARM.

C++ is close to the metal, and compiled to the machine language for the platform that you’re targeting. This offers developers full control, but also requires that they specify the hardware where the app will be supported."

Again, when talking about .Net, platform support depends on two things - 1) is there a CLR for the platform? 2) do I reference assemblies that exist on the target platform?
That's it. The code I write for the WinPhone would run on my PC with the same assemblies and even vice versa. HOWEVER, because many of the BCL assemblies reference unmanaged assemblies, that last criterion restricts app types from platforms such that I cannot run a full WPF app on WinPhone or even WinRT because the underlying DLL does not exist in the same way on those platforms.

Re:A question? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349757)

Will Microsoft allow .Net to run on Windows 8?!??! Are you seriously asking this?

Of course not. They're creating .FIRE This new API requires developers to get IV's of liquid pain injected into their bodies, and allows them to experience coding mistakes first hand.

I'm drunk bitxches (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349699)

Obama wants you to buy Chinese and Muslim made goods

Re:I'm drunk bitxches (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349903)

dont blame him, its cheaper than buying piss poor american goods for 9x the price cause some union flunky showed up to work today, and took a 3 hour nap while getting pain 36 bucks an hour to insure a QC sticker was placed on correctly

fuck off and die

.net will be supported (1)

elabs (2539572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349703)

My understanding is that developers can create metro apps using HTML5, C++ or .Net. The latter two use Xaml for the layout. I have written a number of metro apps using the C# + Xaml option. Granted I have only tried them on x86 development machines but I expect that these metro apps will all work on ARM as well.

Then you can be the smartest guru on the cinder. (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349751)

I've been through a number of cycles of The One True Greatest Solution For All Time a whole bunch of times now.

As The Comedian says, "It's a joke. It's all a joke."

Great, massive, scalable frameworks that we are to write once in, and that's it, it's nothing but code reuse and minor tweaks for as far as the eye can see...until three or four (or two) years goes by and it's all changed and you have to re-write everything all over again...once and for all.

Until the next few years goes by.

Entire graphical e-z layouts with auto code generation. General purpose driver systems. Document data sharing models. Database storage systems with query languages.

It's a joke. It's all a joke. Mother, don't you dare fuckin' forgive them.

Re:Then you can be the smartest guru on the cinder (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349775)

This is me, and will be you, eventually [youtube.com] when the next latest and greatest damned thing comes to change your life for the eleventyth twelfthtish time.

Re:Then you can be the smartest guru on the cinder (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349805)

I seriously, hope, wish, pray, whatever that you are right.

BEcause that means someday we will see the end of XML.

Re:Then you can be the smartest guru on the cinder (3, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350005)

Yup, just more Microsoft word-spooge onto the faces of the developmentally naive.

Joke going around the office: Microsoft buys Yammer, renames it SharePoint Cloud Server 2012 Mobile Enterprise Social Networking Edition. - Gene Smith, Twitter

Someone left an MSDN magazine lying around in work. It had an article titled something like "Leveraging code re-use via multiparadigmatic metaprogramming lambda expressions". After some head scratching, I eventually figured out that they were talking about implementing macros in C#.

Metro eh..? (1)

ausrob (864993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349887)

Honestly, I'm not a big fan. Taking what basically amounts to the (current generation) Xbox user interface and applying it to desktops and portable devices just seems like a massive step backwards.

The HTML 5 standard looks good, and brings definitions which have been missing for over a decade, but it's no replacement for a desktop environment and fully-featured applications.

Also, am I the only one who reads Windows RT and thinks 'Windows Re-Tweet'?

Re:Metro eh..? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349913)

I dont think you have used an Xbox if your making that claim, while metro is shit, metro is for smartphones and tablets, metro is nowhere close to dash ... the dashboard actually has responsive controls for one

Re:Metro eh..? (1)

ausrob (864993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349923)

>I dont think you have used an Xbox if your making that claim
I actually have both an xbox 360 and I've run both Windows 8 pre releases. The xbox dash is better, but IMHO they share very similar look and feel (and are both sandboxes which only run basic applications).

>metro is for smartphones and tablets
No it's not. It's the default mode Windows 8 boots into, regardless of whether you run a desktop PC, a tablet.. etc.

Re:Metro eh..? (0)

slickepott (733214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350677)

>metro is for smartphones and tablets

No it's not. It's the default mode Windows 8 boots into, regardless of whether you run a desktop PC, a tablet.. etc.

So. Metro is for smartphones and tablets.
It's the default mode for Windows 8 even on PCs.

Yes we DO have a problem here.

I'll stick with something else.

Re:Metro eh..? (2)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350059)

"Honestly, I'm not a big fan. Taking what basically amounts to the (current generation) Xbox user interface and applying it to desktops and portable devices just seems like a massive step backwards."

It was a step backwards on the XBox too to be fair. It really doesn't work well there IMO.

They developed the interface for Windows Phone, where it works, and are now trying to carry it everywhere else, where it doesn't work. It's stupid.

"The HTML 5 standard looks good"

Does it? It's bad enough as a web standard, god only knows how terribly it's going to map to the desktop paradigm. I can't really see many existing desktop developers wanting to use the HTML5 path, because the HTML5 spec causes such utter rape of the concept of separation of concerns that the likes of WPF developers have long gotten used to that it's going to make them vomit if they see it. It'll be used more by web developers wanting to make desktop apps, but I guess that's the idea.

"Also, am I the only one who reads Windows RT and thinks 'Windows Re-Tweet'?"

Yes.

Re:Metro eh..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350357)

Among those that I have spoken to, HTML5 is more or less being embraced as a platform agnostic UI system. A very basic X11, essentially. Since the UI part is being covered, it's natural to want to extend it to a full desktop development system. Verbose syntax, incomplete spec and other issues aside, HTML5 is slowly becoming the new Java or .NET framework for the next generation. It's got audio, video, WebGL, and just about everything you need to make widgets. Now what needs to be fixed is performance, browser incompatibilities, and some way to deal with HTML using a proper tool chain. Put these together and you can mask the fact that this all an ad-hoc system that should never have been taken this far.

Re:Metro eh..? (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350397)

The fundamental problem is that it's all entirely backwards.

The web is moving more towards apps so rather than continuing to butcher HTTP and HTML into supporting apps, we'd be better off creating a new protocol handler (is app:// taken?) and creating a set of technologies better meant to facilitate that.

XAML may not be the best option, but it illustrates the concept - it would make much more sense to have something like this built for the web/desktop than it would badly butchering HTTP/HTML.

I agree with you on where HTML5 is going but it frankly scares me, it's a throwback to the bad development practices that came around in the 90s, culminating in Visual Basic 6 being used for actual commercial apps.

I get the feeling it's a new generation of developers pushing all these things, one that hasn't learnt from the mistakes of the previous generation. All the problems with HTML5 have long be solved, but for some reason the solutions have been ignored, and so the problems are merely being repeated. I get the feeling we've got a decade of really bad software ahead of us. Time will tell I guess.

Re:Metro eh..? (1)

ausrob (864993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40351023)

I totally agree with you about HTML/HTTP being (wrongly) moulded for applications, I guess we've sort of seen this coming for a while now with many intranet apps being pushed out (hey-- no installer!). It really breaks away from the premise of marking up and presenting content and allowing light functionality to sit on top of it.

It does create a new opportunity to invest in defining and building a platform-independent web-enabled framework for apps, but I doubt we'll see it.

not learning from mistakes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40351351)

"I get the feeling it's a new generation of developers pushing all these things, one that hasn't learnt from the mistakes of the previous generation. All the problems with HTML5 have long be solved, but for some reason the solutions have been ignored, and so the problems are merely being repeated. I get the feeling we've got a decade of really bad software ahead of us. Time will tell I guess."

They fired the previous generation because all their tech skills were "outdated".

Re:Metro eh..? (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350713)

RT -> Royal Turd. AKA "Windows Royal Turd".

What has happened to Slashdot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349957)

Seriously, has this site simply become a cesspool of trolls, view farmers and ad fairies? Once upon a time there were members that could opine in a relevant manner how they used an OS. Now, it's nothing but mindless, jobless, irrelevant whiners. Does anyone here actually possess a job doing actual work that actually improves our world?

The answer is no, so don't bother. The quality of content here is appalling. The opinions are nearly worthless. The hate-meter so high.

This site now feels like the FOX news of wannabe nerds. However, there are no nerds remaining. Nerds come here now to make fun of the proletariat.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot (1)

SJ2000 (1128057) | more than 2 years ago | (#40349999)

False premise [wikipedia.org] gets hits.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350007)

Get off my lawn

Re:What has happened to Slashdot (1, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350709)

Technology is no longer a game for the young anymore...
That is the problem. When Slashdot started it was full of 1990 hipsters, who were raking in the dough on the Dot Com Madness. They talk about jobs raking in 6 figures, where they spend half the day playing video games, and most of the jobs were either simple Web Development, or going into legacy code and changing the size of the year from 2 to 4, then finding spots on the form do deal with the change. Articles were about things people did with their excess dough, and the new technology that companies were buying, that they were using at work. Linux was the new OS, it showed promise but lacked corporate support, so when ever a company ported some (often closed source) software to Linux, it was a big deal, with a lot less nagging about Open Source purity, because it was a sign of growth in Linux. The complains about Windows were very valid, Compared to other OS's of the day it was very unstable crashed all the time and had huge security problems, the frustration was that the worse operating system was the dominate one.
Then came 2003... The bubble popped... A lot of developers were laid off many of those making six figures had their salaries cut in half those 100k jobs were no 50k, often your quality of your life isn't how much you make, but how much you budget for, when you get a big cut in your income, even if it is still a good salary, you feel the pain, from the change... Things you never needed to budget for you now need to save up for, and everything seems so much more expensive. Getting jobs became more difficult, a lot of those jobs were rushed to India. Windows XP came out, and it was a vast improvement in Windows but Slashdotter who are now under budget constants, and are already miserable and pessimistic, had already put a lot of emotional equality in Linux. Their tight budgets meant that they need to expand their PC Buying time lines, and will wait much longer between PC cycles, thus stuck with an OS designed to run better on slower systems. Anything new was now put off as a new attempt to take our money and give us junk, and justify to ourselves and others why, we are not getting the new and greatest anymore.
Then there was the Microsoft black hole where We have been on Windows XP and IE 6 for far too long. Early on Windows XP had some security problems, but those for the most part were controlled, then 4 year later Windows Visa was a Flop. Then finally Windows 7 which was good to stand on its own again. However during this lag, Linux got a big boost in popularity (with Firefox) early on then those gains were pushed away by Apple, with popularity of the iPod, and iPhone. Apple also picked up some geek cred by having OS X being Unix based OS. That allowed for many Linux fans to switch without missing much (Technically, not in terms of "freedom" lost). So the OS we had put so much emotional investment in hasn't grown much in an area where it had huge opportunity. Microsoft also has gotten a big hit. While early on they got huge market share, they are unable to grow much these days. People are getting less PC's and going to smart phone and tablets. So Microsoft is pushing to stay relevant it has actually done a lot of real good work, however Slashdot users who are now old and bitter from loosing their spot in the 1%, are still holding onto their old ways of looking at things. Microsoft Windows 7 is the same quality as Windows ME, just with a fancier UI, which I don't need anyways. Windows 8 is just there to confuse the users. But can you blame them for being bitter, once they were gods among men, now they are like everyone else.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40351461)

Be the change you seek. Or just keep coming off as a sanctimonious blow hard. Your choice really.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40351311)

It became a heavily biased site that doesn't have any problems escalating to the troll level. The crowd in /. is a bunch of hipsters from Reddit, that what to mix their political, social opinions with technology, and to be honest, /. should not be an opinion site. It should be unbiased reporting, with comments.... but since "reddish"/"yellowish" and polarizing headlines (such as those from Fox News) attract more crowds... there you have it.

The Walled Garden Oligopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40349987)

If developers come to rely on "extended" HTML5-javascript libraries that are simply layered over proprietary OS's, which in turn are layered over proprietary ARM-based hardware, does this not present the perfect angle for these giant corporate monoliths to corner the market and create more walled gardens or even an oligopoly?

Intel/x-86 is not licensed and didn't allow for walled-garden business models because companies (Microsoft) couldn't extend their EULA's to demand 30% of software company's revenue (like Apple does now). A company could create software that run on x86 hardware and any operating system on it and not have to pay Intel or Microsoft or anyone else 30% of it's revenue.

With ARM-based devices however, EVERYTHING becomes totally proprietary. The ARM-architecture is licensed to many manufacturers that then integrate it to these software platforms that extend the EULA of the hardware to include the ENTIRE platform: ergo a "walled garden". Companies may not deploy software to these "devices" without paying exhorbitant fees to those that hold the license to these devices...unless the user "jailbreaks" the device which is technically illegal.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2012/02/08/is_a_windows_walled_garden_the_plan_for_arm
and
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2012/02/09/microsoft_defends_windows_8_walled_garden_for_arm

Microsoft is just trying to cash-in like Apple in this respect. By not supporting HTML5 in IE to the same extent as WebKit-enabled browsers AND by "extending" HTML5, they are trying to both kill and own the HTML5 standard (much like they did for instance with J++ as a way to water down Java's "write once run everywhere" approach). I think this will fail, because the windows phone will never overtake the Android/Iphone market.

A side-point...AT&T, a while back, made a javascript library available that allows direct access to native functions, BUT a developer/company would have to pay AT&T fees to use it! Isn't that interesting....what you can do in PhoneGap for free, AT&T wants to CHARGE you for. Could it be that at some point, approaches like PhoneGap will be blocked in these walled gardens? http://developer.att.com/developer/tierNpage.jsp?passedItemId=9700232

As ARM-based devices crush x86, will EVERYTHING be a giant walled garden controlled by an oligopoly or even monopoly? Will HTML5 then wither on the vine? HTML5 seems to be counter to the walled garden approach. It doesn't require an app-store, just a browser. Will Apple, Google, and Microsoft ban browsers (like PhoneGap), thus securing their victory overweb applications that are not bound by ARM-based-device EULA's and don't require that you be extorted to the tune of 30% of your revenue? Basically, if you want native access, you must pay 30% of revenue?

I think the smart business move in the long run may be to expect these walled garden monopoly approaches to fail because people don't like to be price gouged and because there WILL eventually be an alternative to ARM-based walled gardens that provide native access to the device. This whole business of "app stores" that allow you to deploy software to a device, but require 30% of your revenue seems to me to be the height of monopolistic business practices, and should probably be challenged more so in court and by regulators.

Ditch .NET, it's old already. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350031)

It's been around for over 10 years. Seriously, ditch it. It was shit and will stink the place up for the next 10 years the same way VB6 still does.

Re:Ditch .NET, it's old already. (0, Flamebait)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350091)

Amusing. Only .NET has been meticulously maintained and updated at a reasonable pace and for many types (not all, of course) of development it is ridiculously the best choice.

Now Java, there's a god damn piece of shit if ever there is one. I have to use it for some stuff and holy shit, could they be any more behind? I decided I'd think about using Java 7 and went and looked at what's new. Christ, was I sad and disappointed. Oh boy, I can do MyObject x = new MyObject(..). Wow! What an amazing breakthrough!.. in 2005.

Re:Ditch .NET, it's old already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350171)

I am still laughing at the "why you can't dump Java" article. I know as many Java devs as I do Cobol devs. All kidding aside, I thought IBM, Sun and Oracle killed it long ago. That's right.....I actually typed Sun and this isn't a history lesson. For those of you younger than 30, IBM manufactured household appliances long ago and Oracle had a really fast sailboat that couldn't beat anyone. Oh yeah, and they both could once operate in the Enterprise before TCO.

RIP Oracle and IBM.

Re:Ditch .NET, it's old already. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40350609)

Uh, you're comparing a platform (.NET) to a language (Java); it doesn't quite work that way.

what is the motive for MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350529)

MS is based on Windows monopoly. That MS has been working to maintain with closed software, interfaces and format for whole it's history.
So HTML5, it's open standard. It allow more intelligent applications with browser and any platfrom. Does'nt sound like MS wish?
MS is slowing evolution of HTML by not allowing it in it's IE. Check with html5 test site.
MS will allow HTML5, but only after it is sure there are enough content (videos etc.) tied to Windows. HTML5 does not mandate some open video. Somehow this suits to MS.

you inse8sitive clod! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40350797)

cmore 6randiose
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>