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!

MS XP Drops Java Support

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the in-or-out dept.

Java 367

Indicating this ZDnet article, an Anonymous Coward writes: "Something I haven't seen mentioned before; XP will apparently drop Java support, not only for Java apps, but in the browser as well. XP users can still download and install Java seperately, but of course, how many will choose to do so?"

cancel ×

367 comments

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

Re:Holy FUD Machine, Batman! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#77468)

Any java email virus is the fault of microsoft itself. Of course there are a hundred easier ways to exploit Outlook and Internet explorer, but Microsoft's JVM has holes as well. On the flip side, I am aware of no publicly known vulnerabilities in Sun's Java 2 security. While there was once a never publicized method of writting malformed code that gets by the bytecode varifier, I am aware of no current (or even recent) faults in Sun's virtual machine security.

Re:Not a big deal... (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 13 years ago | (#77475)

I remember the first time I hit a java page. It was back in the early Netscape 2 beta period or late 1.x series IIRC. I remember my computer ran out of memory trying to initalize the jvm and crashed. They say the first impression is the most important, maybe that's why I harbor a lingering distrust for java...

Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.

Um, nice quotes, what are they smoking? (3)

Masem (1171) | more than 13 years ago | (#77477)

The spokesman said the Java support in Windows up until now "is a lot of code that many users don't need ..."

...users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work. Without this step, "any Web page that contains Java applications will not run -- it will be a dead page,"

Apparently, Microsoft execs have not surfed the web recent; it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads. I wonder if this move may entice some web advertizers to take issue with MS for removing a key component for viewing their ads.

This is probably good, but the security reasons??? (5)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 13 years ago | (#77480)

Okay...pretty much everytime I have something that needs Java, trying to run it in IE, unless it's a bouncing ball, is a pain. So, you download the JRE and you're set.

But saying they're doing it for security reasons is just a joke. IIRC, Java applets can only connect back to the server they came from. IIRC, Java doesn't have the Win32 API and can't open your address book and make MAPI calls to spam everyone you know.

Sure, there may be a 1% chance that some hack will be twarted because of them removing Java, but as little as I try to bash MS, until they fix Outlook/Outlook express and the security problem with html/attachments, it's not going to matter.
It seems like every other week there is a new hack via Outlook...I don't even think the most recent one made it on /. - we're sick of hearing about it too.

Re:This KILLS java completely (2)

Outlyer (1767) | more than 13 years ago | (#77481)

>Office XP will only work on Windows XP

While I don't disagree that MS may strongarm people, it's important to note that Office XP is already out, and works fine under Windows 9X/ME and Windows 2K. As for the bundling Java issue, as an earlier poster pointed out, up till now, MS was shipping something based on 1.1, not the 1.4 from Sun. At least this way, developers won't be stuck catering to the lowest common Java version, maybe we'll see some apps using the new performance and features of 1.4. I suppose I'm being idealistic here...

language neutral? (1)

bobalu (1921) | more than 13 years ago | (#77482)

i thought .Net was supposed to be language neutral!

nah (1)

bobalu (1921) | more than 13 years ago | (#77483)

They've been doing their best to kill Java for years now and it didn't work. With the lawsuit out of the way anyone interested in Java at least knows to just go with Sun - there's no more Visual J++ to confuse the issue. It's not just about web surfers - how many web pages execute C++ cgi? Does that mean C++ is dead? Not a bit.

Not a big deal. (2)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 13 years ago | (#77486)

I use Mozilla all the time, and it doesn't come with JVM either - and I haven't needed Java applet support for ages, so I have just not bothered to even install it! I think the last place I used Java was in E2 Java Chatterbox, and another chat application was in use in one of the courses ehre... and, um, that's about that for me "using" Java for anything.

These days, people seem to use much more of Flash for the "irritating blinky content" that Java was formerly so largely used for, though - that's good, because Flash is not slow to download and get running, like Java applets.

I see no problem in "download Java separately if you need it" approach.

The pluging is better anyways (1)

_LORAX_ (4790) | more than 13 years ago | (#77493)

Nothing bad here, mabye people will actaully start using the plugin now. This will mean that the JVM is downloaded from sun automaticly and will be up to date with the features that have been missing for the past 3 years from the browser. M$'s jvm is still based on Java 1.1, cmon we are testing Java2 1.4 at this point.

I can see it now. (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 13 years ago | (#77494)

This is probably paving the way for shades of "Non-MS-DOS Incompatibilities".

Basically no truly platform-optimized VM, so OF COURSE .NET stuff will run faster (not that Java's all that sprightly to begin with sometimes).

Billgatus set us up the bomb!


Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

This is a tragedy! (1)

Steev (5372) | more than 13 years ago | (#77495)


How will I play Bejeweled [msn.com] ?!
--
Join my fight against Subway's new cut!
http://spine.cx/subway/ [spine.cx]

.NET will fix that (sort of) (2)

Da VinMan (7669) | more than 13 years ago | (#77501)

Isn't there a version of Java being developed for release under .NET (by Hewlett-Packard)? I believe so. So, you will be able to run Java under .NET eventually, sort of.

Why 'sort of'? Well, there is the issue of the Java APIs. I doubt that the providing vendor will get those 100% right, but they might even shoot for J2EE compliance. If Sun is wise, they won't fight that either. .NET will be going everywhere and they have much to lose by keeping Java out of .NET.

However, .NET won't fix the issue of Java missing from the browser. But Sun has seen this coming for some time now, hence the existence of what used to be called 'Java Activator', now called 'Java Web Start' I think (see http://www.sun.com/software/communitysource/javawe bstart/ for details).

On the plus side, this does mean we can look forward to not worrying about users actually using Microsoft's Java in browsers. The feature set of that JVM is more limited in terms of the APIs (e.g. Swing) it supports compared to Sun's more current JVMs. Applet developers could actually standardize on a Sun JVM baseline now; not that applets are all that important anymore.

Come to think of it, this doesn't really even affect most Java client-side application as most of those ship with some version of the JVM anyway.

*shrug* I guess we saw this coming a long way off though. Microsoft hasn't really surprised anyone on this.

It's not that big a deal, folks (2)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#77505)

Windows ships without a C compiler, but that didn't kill C. (And yes, I realize you don't need special software to RUN the C programs.)

All the major web browsers can download this stuff automagically, and that's what will happen. XP systems will be without Java for about five minutes after they're first turned on.

This means nothing for Java.

-

Bloat, eh? (2)

grub (11606) | more than 13 years ago | (#77511)

From the article:

[The] spokesman said the Java support in Windows up until now "is a lot of code that many users don't need[..]

Of course Office and Windows itself don't suffer from this unnecessary code bloat, right Mr. Spokesman?

The timing of this is suspect, considering MS just announced that vendors would be free to add their own software to the system..

Re:Is this really surprising? (1)

geojaz (11691) | more than 13 years ago | (#77512)

Once upon a time, Sun got an injection against Microsoft...

Hmm... a vaccination against Microsoft...
Perhaps you were looking for injunction?

Re:Um, nice quotes, what are they smoking? (1)

thegrommit (13025) | more than 13 years ago | (#77514)

Um, you'll find that any site that uses Java ads will have a backup for the java-disabled crowd.

In the current ad market, do you seriously think any site is gonna rely on a technology that is slowly dying (client side java) for it's source of revenue?

Re:Actually... (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 13 years ago | (#77516)

Microsoft is forbidden to ship their embraced-and-extended stuff as Java (tm), but they are certainly permitted to ship the Real Thing (according to Sun at least). They've just realized that they'll never control it, so they'll bury it instead. Business as usual, nothing to see here folks, move along...

Re:Actually... (1)

Alternity (16492) | more than 13 years ago | (#77523)

From the article : "Under terms of a settlement with Sun, Microsoft was given the right to continue to use early versions of Sun's Java code in Microsoft products for seven years, but made no commitment to do so.

They still could ship Java, not the latest versions. They decided to remove it altogether instead.


"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...

One good decision, one dumb decision (2)

geophile (16995) | more than 13 years ago | (#77525)

Dropping Java from the OS is a great idea. It eliminates the sometimes mysterious errors due to finding the wrong JVM or libraries on your PATH or CLASSPATH. (On the other hand, who would use XP for development?)

Dropping Java from the browser won't stand. Looking at it from Microsoft's point of view, it's a piece of legacy support they can't drop without pissing off many in their target audience. Imagine the reaction (not from geeks, but from everyone) if they dropped Javascript in favor of VBscript.

It doens't matter (2)

magic (19621) | more than 13 years ago | (#77527)

IE has been shipping with an ancient JVM anyway. To use a compliant 1.3 (soon to be 1.4!) JVM in a browser, developers use Sun's Java plugin as an ActiveX control or Netscape Plugin.

See http://www.javasoft.com/products/plugin/index.html [javasoft.com] for more information on the Java plugin.

-m

Embrace, Extend, ... (1)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 13 years ago | (#77528)

and Extinguish. Why should we be surprised?

Re:I think this is for the better (1)

lgraba (34653) | more than 13 years ago | (#77541)

"Java right now is still a moving target with a new verison coming out every half a year or so, and I don't think that bundling a JVM with an OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing audience. "

If you mean that the version that MS would have installed would have been Java 1.1, rather than the current 1.3 (or might it be 1.4 when XP is released) I agree with you.

However, I doubt that MS's motivation has any relation to that situation. They see Java as a competitor, and will not give Java any help by including it with the OS installation. I also think that there is a customer need for Java, and there needs to be an effort to get Java installed on all the new PC's that are sold running WinXP. One way for this to happen would be for the PC OEMs to install it before the PC leaves their factory, but this sort of action was not allowed by MS contracts in the past. This is a real test case for MS's anti-trust behavior: if the PC OEM's customers want something, but MS contracts prevent the OEM's from providing it, then customer needs cannot be met due to MS's exclusionary contracts. DOJ, are you watching?

Re:This KILLS java completely (1)

ff (35380) | more than 13 years ago | (#77542)

I agree, this is probably the beginning of the end for Java. The problem is people's lazyness... if you move in small enough steps, you can get them anywhere and they won't notice or care.

This makes sense... (2)

Monthenor (42511) | more than 13 years ago | (#77547)

...now. See, yesterday I was trying to find the Microsoft Java API online to figure out WHY IN GOD(S)'S NAME I CAN'T USE SETCURSOR() IN IE. They had moved the page I had bookmarked. After wrestling with the MSDN Library "Help" for a while, I finally had to do a raw search for it. They're not even calling it a Java API anymore, it's all listed under Visual J++...probably so they can bury it all at once. I hate hate HATE their pathetic half-assed implementation...like moving the Point class up the inheritence heirarchy! What's up with that? Forcing everyone who uses standard Java to write their own personal Point class...,/rant>
------------------------

Isn't this exactly what Sun wanted (5)

throx (42621) | more than 13 years ago | (#77548)

Microsoft has been accused of an "embrace and extend" attack on Java for years and has even lost a lawsuit on those grounds. Now they have rolled over and played dead - not shipping Java with the OS anymore and requiring users to go out and download the JVM they want.

Sun's got what they wanted and suddenly it doesn't look so good. Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.

Re:So what ? (1)

edwdig (47888) | more than 13 years ago | (#77549)

Mozilla (right now) isn't aimed for the average user tho. Someone who's going to have trouble downloading a JVM isn't going to know what Mozilla is in the first place. Netscape's releases include Sun's JVM. The average IE user is probably as likely to go download a JVM as they are to go download Netscape. As history as shown, that's not gonna happen.

It's not a bad thing (2)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 13 years ago | (#77551)

Web sites using Java applets are lousy. Most of the time, Java is only used for useless bloat like animated buttons or customized menus. It needs a lot of memory and CPU for this crap.
I'm using Opera on Linux, without Java support. And it's great. I really don't need a Java-enabled browser. Java is now old-fashionned, webmasters leaved it in favor of Flash. Flash achieves the same thing, but it's lightweight, less bug-prone and creating flash files doesn't require any programming knowledge.

-- Pure FTP server [pureftpd.org] - Upgrade your FTP server to something simple and secure.

Re:Actually... (1)

levik (52444) | more than 13 years ago | (#77553)

Read the article. They can ship it for seven more years if they chose to.

Re:I think this is for the better (1)

levik (52444) | more than 13 years ago | (#77554)

I wasn't questioning MS's motivation, just indicating that in the long run, the move might prove to be beneficial, or at least insignificant to Java as a language.

And I think (based on a story posted about a week ago here on slashdot) that MS's OEM deals for XP will allow manufacturers to preinstall things they choose. (The article mentions this as well)However this being a manual operation might make it too costly for OEMs to pracice it widely.

Re:Why would they need it after they copied it? (2)

levik (52444) | more than 13 years ago | (#77559)

Servlets

I think this is for the better (4)

levik (52444) | more than 13 years ago | (#77560)

To all of the people using Java out there, this announcement seems like the equivalent of "XP will no longer encorporate a web browser".

Java right now is still a moving target with a new verison coming out every half a year or so, and I don't think that bundling a JVM with an OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing audience.

Re:This KILLS java completely (5)

levik (52444) | more than 13 years ago | (#77561)

Your arguments are all true, but do not really add up to the death of Java. What they add up to is the death of Java in the browser, which has arguably been a bad idea to begin with, and has probably become a worse idea once Flash came out. Other than playing web based games, java in the browser is just plain annoying. (I should mention here that I am a big fan of the Java language, and get paid to develop mostly in Java)

Java used the client side applets to gain prominence, but that was mostly a gimmick. Where Java really comes into its own is on the server, where the developer can control the JVM version, and doesn't have to use Java 1.0 for compatibility's sake.

Since server based Java never relied on the MS JVM, it remains unefective and just as viable as it ever was.

Sort of mildly annoying... (1)

Mr. Gus (58458) | more than 13 years ago | (#77563)


Dunno about the "Java Developer's Perspective" (they'd probably want to play with Sun's regardless), but this is sort of annoying. Java stuff is generall the sort of thing that I try to avoid, that I turn off in Netscape REGARDLESS of the fact that it makes it more stable. :) Depending on what computer I'm at, I use IE too. Soooo....

In spite of that, sometimes I will need to use Java. I can't entirely get around it, and if I actually intended to use XP (I play with my machines a tad too much for anything to be worth that, honestly, though you never know...), this could get really annoying. I can see myself downloading the "Java Plug-In" once a month, and just not looking at stuff that I want to because I'm too lazy every-other (which, in the paranoid "MS must be trying to kill something off" sense, is what one would think MS is going for).

At the same time, I wouldn't mind Java going away on the internet... :) My stupid opinion...

okay... (1)

camusflage (65105) | more than 13 years ago | (#77564)

Not like it's that hard to download a JVM...

Now Sun has to make a smart move (5)

javatips (66293) | more than 13 years ago | (#77570)

It's time for Sun to make a smart move.

They can benefit from this situation and make Java (recent version like 1.3) more present on the desktop.

Now that MS allows OEM to modify the Windows Setup with far less restriction than before, Sun can work with OEM (like Dell, Compact and others) to bundle the Java Plug-In in new PCs.
Unfortunatly, I doubt that Sun will take this course of action. They are to much focus on the server to actually do this.

Well, Actually... (1)

blazerw11 (68928) | more than 13 years ago | (#77572)

They are forbidden to alter Java. They can include it all they want. Even the article states this.

Re:okay... (1)

GuySmiley (71599) | more than 13 years ago | (#77575)

Not really:

Our sysadmin locks us all out from changing any setting or installing anything on our lovely new win2K boxes. I can't install jack.

Is this really surprising? (1)

km790816 (78280) | more than 13 years ago | (#77577)

Once upon a time, Sun got an injection against Microsoft for their Java implementation. They forced MS to recall all products that had had Java in the box costing Microsoft in excess of US $1 Billion. Do you know why? Because Microsoft's Java implementation didn't pass Sun's test. Never mind that MS didn't have access to the test nor that Netscape failed the test on more counts. Can you blame MS for staying out of the way of a litigation-happy competitor? If you want Java, download it. Download Sun's implementation...it'll make you feel better, even if it isn't as fast. :-)

To sum it up for you (1)

DougMackensie (79440) | more than 13 years ago | (#77580)

BAH!
/me strokes lead pipe next to desk thinking evil things about evil microsoft

This KILLS java completely (2)

blakestah (91866) | more than 13 years ago | (#77593)

Look. There is no use fighting it. Microsoft will coerce users into upgrading to XP. They've done it before, and they will do it again. It will be a 3 pronged strategy. Office XP will only work on Windows XP, OEMs will be stronghanded into shipping XP, and newer devices will be unsupported on older versions of Windows. Bang - within 3-4 years, everyone will be in the subscription model running XP.

Now, Microsoft harnesses the other thing they KNOW about the user - the thing used to kill netscape. The user does not change his default settings. Most users never change their browser home page. Most users never install any new software to work with their browser. Most users never delete the icons that ship on their first boot screen.

BTW, netscape and AOL know this as well - that is why they change the default settings for plugins (read media players) when they install. Hardly any users will change it back.

Remember, protocols on the web need to be broadly supported, or people will not use them. If even 25% of all users cannot access java without installing it themselves, java is dead.

And Microsoft can always claim that they made it VERY easy for the user to install java themselves, and it will not change a thing. They could even make the install a one-click thing from their web site - and it would not change a thing except Microsoft's defensibility in court.

Gates and Co. didn't achieve a 40% profit margin by being nice guys. They have a monopoly, and they know how to use it.

Re:This KILLS java completely (2)

blakestah (91866) | more than 13 years ago | (#77594)

That works for now.

In a subscription model Microsoft can decide to strongarm you at any time you are re-subscribing - like yearly, for example.

Re:More FUD: no Java in browser? (1)

Keelor (95571) | more than 13 years ago | (#77597)

Browsers will still include JVM's, folks.

Um... the point of the article is that Microsoft's browser _won't_ include a JVM--if people want to eXPerience Java, they'll need to download one.

There's always the chance that this will all backfire on MS and everyone to switch to Netscape to get their JVM. It seems more likely, though, that OEMs will install a JVM with their distributions of XP, and those that don't buy through OEMs will be willing/able to spend a little time downloading.

~=Keelor
Redmond: the land of nmake-believe

Re:So? (1)

carleton (97218) | more than 13 years ago | (#77599)

Heh... I read that as "if it wasn't invented by Macintosh and stolen by Microsoft, it's not worth using, right?"

Funny how the mind interpolates things.

(Yeah, Xerox labs... blah blah blah)

Re:So what ? (2)

Dr_Cheeks (110261) | more than 13 years ago | (#77607)

Mozilla also ships without a JVM, and the first time you try to access a site that needs Java it'll tell you about that and ask if you want to download.
But most of the people who use Mozilla aren't intimidated by the prospect of seeking out a JVM (indeed, most folk have to go looking for Mozilla itself rather than it being pre-installed with their O/S).

IE, OTOH, shows up on most new PCs and that's all Joe Sixpack needs to worry about. He's unlikely to go get another browser if he already has one, and he's just as unlikely to bother with the download of a JVM (or even truly appreciate why he should).

We could all fix this in no time, but most regular users will just see a message saying "Would you like to download potentially dangerous software to view this site's potentially dangerous content? Yes/No?" and click the No option.

Re:okay... (1)

KingAdrock (115014) | more than 13 years ago | (#77609)

Actually lastime I tried to download and install Netscape it didn't work. That is why I won't use it!

.NET (2)

KingAdrock (115014) | more than 13 years ago | (#77610)

I am a Microsoft supporter (There goes my Karma) and I'm not a big fan of Java, but I think that this is a mistake.

Just recently I started programming using .NET. I've mostly used VB.NET to develop both desktop and web applications. I think it is a great technology, but Microsoft needs to realize that it is going to take time for it to take hold. Discontinueing Java support this early will make more users mad than it will make users happy. The first time Johnny Computer User tries to play a Java game online and has to go download a 6 Meg JVM he is going to be pissed.

I can't think of a good reason to take out Java unless it is to force sites to start using .NET instead of Java, and I'm not sure most Webmasters are ready to do this.


Re:Page only viewable in Windows (1)

frknfrk (127417) | more than 13 years ago | (#77616)

javascript is still going to be included in the browser, just not a 'full java applet' vm. javascript is not java any more than an apple is an orange. so don't worry, you'll get to keep your rollovers and popup windows.

Re:Um, nice quotes, what are they smoking? (3)

gowen (141411) | more than 13 years ago | (#77631)

it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads.
You mean people will lose the ads? This should go on top of all their own publicity. WinXP - Lose those freaking annoying ads...

Ads are an annoyance, not a feature (and there a so few java(script) applets that are actually useful (name 3), that this should definitely be considered a feature.

Gaz, happily surfing without ads [junkbuster.com] , java or javascript since 1997 (posted with Netscape 3). Missing nothing that appeals to anyone over 12.

Dropping _something_ (1)

Maran (151221) | more than 13 years ago | (#77642)

I think industry and public XP support is dropping like the proverbial lead balloon at the moment.

We don't use MS's VM, anyway (1)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 13 years ago | (#77644)

MS's VM was frozen at the beginning of the Sun lawsuit, so it is not really that relevant anymore. We haven't used it for a very long time.
We always bundle a JRE with our apps anyway, in order to be independent of anything the user might already have installed. So, if they download our stuff, then they have a VM. No problem!

Re:okay... (2)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 13 years ago | (#77652)

Not like it's that hard to download Netscape either, but that didn't stop millions from using IE just because it was there. The point here is that if it's not pre-installed, most of the unwashed computing masses won't use it.

Re:okay... (1)

Sir_Real (179104) | more than 13 years ago | (#77672)

Drop Java in favor of .NET? Why? If your apps are written in Java, just make the browser download the freakin' plugin. The designer of the app/page has the control here. So what if the XP browser doesn't come stock with a JVM. There's enough stuff out there that requires a JVM already that a lot of people have them by now. I wouldn't go so far as to say its "entrenched" but it's certainly more prolific than .NET.

Einer

MS is dropping Java (1)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 13 years ago | (#77681)

why are you blaming MS. Remember the law suit from Sun? MS is required by law to drop Java support within 7 years and it's great because Java apps are real slow.

Re:okay... (1)

R2P2 (193577) | more than 13 years ago | (#77684)

Yes, but sites that require Java usually say something along the lines of "Sorry, but you need a JVM installed to really view this site." I don't recall any site ever saying something like that about Netscape.

This is a GOOD THING (1)

Mr. Troll (202208) | more than 13 years ago | (#77685)

So now you people are complaining because MS ISN'T "intergrating" things into windows? This is a step in the right direction, no?....now MS is letting you CHOOSE what you want installed.

C'mon everyone, lets all just use C# (1)

Coq (204365) | more than 13 years ago | (#77687)

I mean hey, everyone is going to be using XP, what with its revolutionary licensing scheme, its built in support for encoding Windows Media, and its ability to use raw sockets, we may as well just jump on the bandwagon now. Seriously though, I mean, Microsoft has forced its will on us before, but at least it was one thing at a time. This is really starting to add up. Also, isn't that conflicting logic between support of raw sockets and lack of support for java. With sockets, they say a few people wanted it, now they're saying only a few people would need it?

Re:C'mon everyone, lets all just use C# (1)

Coq (204365) | more than 13 years ago | (#77688)

sorry, clarification, shoulda previewed better. sockets, a few people wanted it, java, only a few would need it.

Not too bad (1)

purplemonkeydan (214160) | more than 13 years ago | (#77703)

The minute you visit a site that uses a Java applet, you are prompted to download the Microsoft VM, which is about 5 megs. There is a check box that disables this ever coming up again, in which case you have to head over to Windows Update. Personally, I think this is a good thing, because I'm not a fan of Java applets. Especially that evil Red Sheriff 'tracking' applet, which is common on Australian sites, and is very invasive.

Re:maybe aol can save us? :) (1)

purplemonkeydan (214160) | more than 13 years ago | (#77704)

HAHA ... why would AOHell distribute Java? They'd rather use their own proprietary stuff to add interactivity to AOL sites.

As for the warning message, it doesn't mention that Java is harmful at all. It just says that to view everything on this page, you must install the Virtual Machine, which is 5 megs.

Re:Actually... (1)

Kevin DeGraaf (220791) | more than 13 years ago | (#77708)

Actually ...they are forbidden to ship java, they lost the case against sun.

You're a dumbass. Read the damned article:

A Microsoft spokesman said Java support was diminished for "business reasons" and noted that it follows last year's legal dispute with Java's creator, Sun Microsystems Inc. Under terms of a settlement with Sun, Microsoft was given the right to continue to use early versions of Sun's Java code in Microsoft products for seven years, but made no commitment to do so.

Why would they need it after they copied it? (1)

spongebob (227503) | more than 13 years ago | (#77709)

After trying to cripple Java as a new technology and continuing on to develop C#, why would they want to support another rival technology they stole? While Java is not completely where we want it to be in order to see a wholesale move, it's getting there. I have seen some very impressive things of late and I am moving more of my work over. all Java will need is a killer app to adjust this issue

So what ? (5)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 13 years ago | (#77712)

Mozilla also ships without a JVM, and the first time you try to access a site that needs Java it'll tell you about that and ask if you want to download.

M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have, I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java, or this can backfire on them when DOJ adds this to the list of evidence on the proccess.

--

Re:I think this is for the better (1)

jockm (233372) | more than 13 years ago | (#77713)

Try more like a year or more between major releases of Java. The platform is mature these days...

Re:So what ? (2)

Sterling Anderson (235186) | more than 13 years ago | (#77715)

From the article:
"After Windows XP is launched in October, users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work."

Re:Page only viewable in Windows (1)

fscking_coward_2001 (236799) | more than 13 years ago | (#77716)

Let's just get this straight. Java != Javascript. Rollovers, menus, etc on web pages are Javascript. Applets and server-side code are Java. I feel better now.

Re:okay... (5)

fscking_coward_2001 (236799) | more than 13 years ago | (#77717)

The point is not whether it is hard to download a JVM. The point is that Java support won't be available without an extra step. This means that MS-sponsored technologies will be the default.

The article quotes someone who points out that if businesses want broad visiblity to their web sites, they might want to think about dropping Java in favor of .NET. That's the real impact here.

Think about what's happening to Real Networks, Kodak, and others who are seeing MS put their own technologies as "integral" parts of Windows to replace the products these companies are selling.

Re:So what ? (2)

JohnDenver (246743) | more than 13 years ago | (#77723)

M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have, I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java, or this can backfire on them when DOJ adds this to the list of evidence on the proccess.

1. Sun sued Microsoft into doing this... They settled allowing MS to keep thier implementation of Java 1.1 for up to seven years.
2. ASP is a server side technology that has been duplicated on Apache.
3. Read the article, "After Windows XP is launched in October, users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work. "
4. ActiveX is dead for web UI's among MS developers, and dotNET isn't likely.

Re:So? (1)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | more than 13 years ago | (#77727)

That's Apple's ill-fated mindset. Microsoft doesn't believe you shouldn't use things they didn't invent (after all, they invented very little). They don't want you using things they don't control.

They've dropped Performance, too (2)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | more than 13 years ago | (#77728)

At least, according to the Boy Wonder [anandtech.com] . Check out their tests here [anandtech.com] .

Still beta, I know, but startling nonetheless.

Not a big deal... (1)

somethingwicked (260651) | more than 13 years ago | (#77736)

Does anyone remember when you first ran into a Java based item on the web?

You prob went wherever you were directed to download a plugin, and were done with it.

GUESS WHAT!!! Its even MORE brainless now in most cases. If you don't have Billy Bob's Big Badass Plugin, it pops up and automatically asks if you want to install it! Most users just click the download button without thinking because they want to see the latest "George Bush is stupid" cartoon.

Page only viewable in Windows (1)

TheWhiteOtaku (266508) | more than 13 years ago | (#77739)

It's obvious that without Java incorporated into the browser, many webpages will be forced to create seperate "Windows XP" pages, for all the sloths too lazy to download the damn thing.

On the bright side, this will spell the end of rollover images, news tickers, and other bandwidth eating idiocies.

On the bad side, I fear many pages will choose to substitute the cursed VBScript, which is actually (in my opinion) a bit superior to Javascript, but unfortunately is proprietary Microsoft-only.

If Microsoft is trying to force people to abandon the well loved and freely availible language for a language that would, in essense, make Microsoft Internet Explorer the only browser availible, they should simply say so, rather than mucking about it.

Of course, this is all speculation.

Re:Page only viewable in Windows (1)

TheWhiteOtaku (266508) | more than 13 years ago | (#77740)

so don't worry, you'll get to keep your rollovers and popup windows.

Blast.

I doubt... (2)

TheWhiteOtaku (266508) | more than 13 years ago | (#77743)

Apparently, Microsoft execs have not surfed the web recent; it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads. I wonder if this move may entice some web advertizers to take issue with MS for removing a key component for viewing their ads.

A couple points:

1) Microsoft Execs know that what they are saying is a crock of crap. They know that no one in their right mind believes them, but lying is preferable to saying "HAHAHAHA, we shall crush Java and no one can stop us!" because that could come back to bite them in court.
2) You're absolutely right, many banner ad services are gonna be going crazy over this, but when Microsoft will inevitably refuse to back down, I bet many of them will consider switching to VBScript, or whatever the hell proprietary language Microsoft wants them to use rather than losing over half their customers (I'm sure over half of PC users will either be too stupid or lazy to download Java). The end result of this is that many banner ad services will switch to Microsoft, rather than just getting angry.

Or I could just be paranoid, who knows.

Holy FUD Machine, Batman! (5)

mlamb (303474) | more than 13 years ago | (#77750)

Tightening Java security
In a separate move affecting Java, Microsoft is tightening security settings in its new Windows and Office programs that in some cases will also disable Java programs. Microsoft's new products will now screen out Java as a possible carrier of computer viruses in e-mail and, under high-security settings, in Web-browsing software. This move, first signaled in a software "security patch" distributed last year, is part of a broader effort by Microsoft to help stamp out the spread of computer viruses.


Finally, Microsoft is doing something to combat those horrible java-based email viruses! But will they also screen all your emails to make sure they don't contain any of that nasty GPL virus?

So? (1)

Wheel Of Fish (305792) | more than 13 years ago | (#77752)

Hey, if it wasn't invented by Microsoft, it's not worth using, right?

;)

I wonder if they'll offer that on Windows Update like they did for 98...

Re:Page only viewable in Windows (2)

Ayende Rahien (309542) | more than 13 years ago | (#77757)

They take out Java, not JavaScript.

--
Two witches watched two watches.

Not such a big a deal. (5)

Ayende Rahien (309542) | more than 13 years ago | (#77758)

The JVM that IE has isn't exactly the best of breed. (Although I understand that it used to be), so making the users get it on their own is not a devestating blow to Java.
Not to mention that Java's promise as a desktop application language have flopped big time.
Java is now a server-centric language, applets are at a distant second place. I can't recall the last time I've seen a Java applet, for that matter, except for maybe that annoying "hit the monkey" ads, and I won't miss those.

Beside, considerring how trendy web developers are, *what is the big deal*?
Already, if you use many things, you require your user to download a plug-in to do it. And in many cases, this can be fully automated process.
In any case, this is not very threatening to Java.

--
Two witches watched two watches.

We have seen Embrace & Extend... (1)

why-is-it (318134) | more than 13 years ago | (#77767)

And now we see Extinguish.

Typical behaviour from micro$oft.
Nobody should claim to be surprised.

Re:Actually... (1)

why-is-it (318134) | more than 13 years ago | (#77768)

"...they are forbidden to ship java, they lost the case against sun."

IIRC they were forbidden to advertise their products as being Java compliant, since they were not, but they were permitted to ship Java until the original contract expired.

They are perfectly free to try to negotiate a new deal with Sun to ship Java if they want to.

Active-X (2)

why-is-it (318134) | more than 13 years ago | (#77771)

"Do you really think MS would let people easily install java???"

Why do you need Java? With Active-X you get so much more! Active-X does not have one of those viral licenses that destroy intellectual propoerty.

It can be used however to exploit number of security holes that permit viruses to propagate and destroy your data. Let's see Java do that!

The problem is not so much in installing Java, but in dis-abling and/or removing Active-X.

Re: okay... (1)

Rytsarsky (319094) | more than 13 years ago | (#77772)

They don't want to have to download a JVM (which are normally about 10-20MB - long time on a dial up connection).

To get just the JRE to run java programs, it's not nearly that big... just a few megs. It's the JDK that's 20-someodd megs.

Recent Court decision? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 13 years ago | (#77773)

Didn't Microsoft lose a court decision to Sun saying they were *required* to no longer claim to be Java compliant since Microsoft was not adhering to the standard?

In which case, they must do this and then try to make their own stuff the new defacto standard.

Unfortunately, I can't find anything to support this on-line.

Re:Holy FUD Machine, Batman! (2)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 13 years ago | (#77775)

>Microsoft's new products will now screen out Java as a possible carrier of computer viruses in e-mail

I wonder if outlook express is shipped?? and wat about VBscript?

Re:Um, nice quotes, what are they smoking? (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 13 years ago | (#77779)

The spokesman said the Java support in Windows up until now "is a lot of code that many users don't need ..."

As though Windows didn't contain enough other code that many users don't need.... I'm really curious to see what will happen if they release XP this way.

GreyPoopon
--

Tigher security -- blocking java? (2)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 13 years ago | (#77780)

Microsoft's new products will now screen out Java as a possible carrier of computer viruses in e-mail and, under high-security settings, in Web-browsing software.

How many java e-mail viruses have we heard about? Surely this article is a satire. I honestly can't believe this crap. And it really disturbs me to think that most users *will* believe it.

GreyPoopon
--

maybe aol can save us? :) (1)

nilstar (412094) | more than 13 years ago | (#77781)

Maybe aol could start shipping java on all those free cds that they give out.... think of aol as our msaveour :)

But in all seriousness, I don't think the 'average user' would download java because of some MS 'warning message' on how (possibly) harmful java is to your computer (probably omitting the word possibly). Do you really think MS would let people easily install java????!

Re:It's not that big a deal, folks (1)

HisMother (413313) | more than 13 years ago | (#77782)

> Windows ships without a C compiler, but that
> didn't kill C. (And yes, I realize you don't
> need special software to RUN the C programs.)

Actually, to be picky, you do need special software to run many C programs, at least those written in Visual C++: the MSVCRT.dll C runtime DLL. There are multiple versions of this, and the installers for many apps install their own. Making sure you've got the right version of this library is one of the common variants of "DLL Hell."

Re: okay... (1)

pinny20 (415459) | more than 13 years ago | (#77784)

Thing is though it will push webmasters into making .NET only pages. Imagine Joe User goes to your website which has a Java applet on it. Lots of users will end up saying "your website doesn't work". They don't want to have to download a JVM (which are normally about 10-20MB - long time on a dial up connection).

It's all about trying to kill off Java - Microsoft could have bundled Sun's JVM but they've chosen not to - that speaks volumes if you ask me.

More FUD: no Java in browser? (1)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 13 years ago | (#77791)

Without this step, "any Web page that contains Java applications will not run -- it will be a dead page," said Jan Vitek, a professor of computer science at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. "This favors Microsoft's new technologies, and will inconvenience consumers," he said.

Almost sounds like FUD against Microsoft for a change! Browsers will still include JVM's, folks.

For Web-based businesses, Vitek added, "if you want your Web page accessible to the largest number of people, you may want to drop Java" and switch to Microsoft's competing set of products, which is under development and is known as .Net.

Oh, I see. He's actually supporting Microsoft. Remember, folks, if it's FUD, it comes from Redmond.

Monopoly Strategy (1)

Genoaschild (452944) | more than 13 years ago | (#77794)

The courts ruled that Microsoft had a monopoly in Java by making their JVM incompatible with Sun's. Since more people use MS than Sun, most people wrote for MS incompatible JVM, taking away most of the market share of Sun and other companies in the same market. By leaving their JVM out of the market, it will give secondary companies more chance to develop the market and make Microsoft look less Monopolistic. Remember, it's not always what you do do, but what you don't do that shapes your future image.
----

Re:okay... (1)

Genoaschild (452944) | more than 13 years ago | (#77795)

Try manually installing it if you can't get administrator access. Else, get a boot disk with NTFS support and start hacking away.
----

Approximately 1.5 minutes (5)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 13 years ago | (#77802)

1.5 minutes. That's how long it took me to download the Java VM in Windows XP. Internet Explorer automatically pops up a windows the first page you go to with Java, you click OK, and the page runs. No restarting the computer or the browser. 6 megs total for the VM.

Explain to me again why we're worried? Windows XP also doesn't have support for RealVideo (Windows never has) so that involved me downloading a 5 minute download from Real. The Java download was completely and utterly automatic (similar to downloading Shockwave for Windows).

This is another fine example of people making mountains out of Microsoft molehills.

Revenge i name thee. (1)

ascii(64) (454365) | more than 13 years ago | (#77804)

(ok so my old-english is not thet good, what the heck neigther is my new)

I think this might bee that MS is a bit pissed on Sun for the law suit the got smacked on them for unautorised modefying of Java.

Revenge thy name is $Bill.

@

Re:maybe aol can save us? :) (1)

ThePilgrim (456341) | more than 13 years ago | (#77807)

Yes and then you get that helpfull little MS Dialog Box saying 'Installing the JAVAVM will allow unknown people to access your .NET account details'

ActiveX vs. Java (1)

carambola5 (456983) | more than 13 years ago | (#77808)

Does m$ really think that ActiveX will replace java? Having taken one semester of java programming at the university level, I realize that java has much more potential in the ways of security. It has less ability to manipulate local files, and more ability to be a self-contained app. ActiveX, on the other hand, was practically built to utilize m$ propreitary code, as well as interact with the local HDD. Can you say "Welcome Trojans!"?
Remember, it's not paranoia if they're really after you.

Actually... (1)

codeforprofit2 (457961) | more than 13 years ago | (#77812)

...they are forbidden to ship java, they lost the case against sun.

hmmm (1)

virion (461888) | more than 13 years ago | (#77815)

and again microsoft is doing everything to get control over the market. they cannot add own stuff to java so they will just excluded. same thing over and over again

The real reason for this (1)

J.A. Lizzi (466204) | more than 13 years ago | (#77822)

I think that the real reason MS is dropping Java completely can be found in this paragraph:

For Web-based businesses, Vitek added, "if you want your Web page accessible to the largest number of people, you may want to drop Java" and switch to Microsoft's competing set of products, which is under development and is known as .Net.

Good idea, MicroSquish. I'm sure that most companies will love the fact their web pages are viewable by even *less* people.

Although, given how many pages are 99.9% Flash or IE-only HTML or something else hard to view on Unix and/or Netscape, maybe I'm giving businesses far too much credit here...

Re:Um, nice quotes, what are they smoking? (2)

rockabilly (468561) | more than 13 years ago | (#77831)

Indeed, my thoughts exactly. Oh, isn't that sweet? M$ is replacing a piece of software containing "alot of code" with another behind-the-scene piece of bloatware that will probably only only work half-assed anyway.

Kinda makes you wonder about this plug-in; why doesn't M$ just include it in the o.s. at shipping? Why do they want you to connect to their site to pull it down? Is there something else that's happening behind the download???

Re:okay... (1)

falzbro (468756) | more than 13 years ago | (#77832)

Certianly everyone who WANTS to write java shit will download an alternative to a MS jvm anyhow. Those who are just on some horrid web page which has a java nav bar will just click on the silly 'trust microsoft' option and let it install.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>