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!

Another Belated Microsoft Memo

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the better-late-than-never dept.

The Internet 232

fiannaFailMan writes "Bill Gates has sent out another memo heralding the latest big development in the industry, as he sees it. This time it's web-based software using technology such as AJAX (that MS 'invented but failed to exploit'). The Economist says 'As in previous cases, what is new is not the idea itself, but the fact that Microsoft is taking it seriously.' Zach Nelson of NetSuite decided against writing a memo. 'Writing memos is cheap,' he says, whereas 'writing software is a whole lot harder.'"

cancel ×

232 comments

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

Hype (0, Flamebait)

unik (929502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067854)

Sounds like another genious hype-raping strategy from none other than Bill Gates. "Shutup, he's going to say something!"

Another dupe (0)

notbob (73229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067855)

this is another dupe story that was talked about a few weeks ago...

apparently the editors are stoned on friday nights again

Re:Another dupe (3, Funny)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067957)

yes, amazing. zonk dissapears for a while, comes back, posts 2 dupes in a day.

Re:Another dupe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068156)

My bad.
I had him locked in my basement being raped by gnomes on Viagra, but your mom forgot to bar the windows, so he broke one and escaped through it, leaving the rest of his tiny manhood behind on a shard of glass.

All hail Zonkette!

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067856)

first port!!!!!!!!

Re:first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067936)

First port?

But does it support Linux?

Memo (5, Funny)

Donut2099 (153459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067857)

Note to self: learn to write software

Re:Memo (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068004)

> Note to self: learn to write software

Addendum: Make sure someone fucking buries the next NetSuite and fucking kills the next Zach Nelson before the lunch with Ballmer. Buy stronger chairs, too.

Re:Memo (1)

buck_wild (447801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068098)

Note to above poster: decaf is apparently bad for you, but a bit LESS caffeine may be a good thing. Have a good weekend. :)

Re:Memo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068118)

Note to above poster: you are fucking retarded.

Have a nice retarded life, retardo.

Re:Memo (1)

buck_wild (447801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068147)

Someone is a bit touchy today. "retardo" made me think of 4th grade...and laugh.

digg (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068305)

Digg [digg.com] is much better than Slashdot.

Open Love Letter To Bill Gates.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067863)

Dear Bill..

I Love You!!!!!!

Signed..

Anonymous Coward

Re:Open Love Letter To Bill Gates.. (2, Funny)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067923)

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Let me just say that—

Sorry, Billy got a BSOD. He'll send his message momentarily.

And by momentarily, I mean in no less time than 72 hours.

;)

Re:Open Love Letter To Bill Gates.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068113)

momentarily means "for a moment," not "in a moment."

Who owns it? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067865)

So does Microsoft have a patent on AJAX? Can they leverage their parenting of the technology to stifle progress once again? Who owns AJAX?

Re:Who owns it? (2, Insightful)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067941)

When has Microsoft flexed their patent muscle to stifle progress? Could you post an example, or are you just anti-"micro$oft!!Lol"? You should note that their "anti-competitive practices" did not involve patents, and would be hailed in a truly free society.

Re:Who owns it? (2, Informative)

msbsod (574856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067981)

FAT [theinquirer.net]

Re:Who owns it? (1)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068069)

That article says that MS could flex their patent muscle.

It is NOT an example of a time that they have done so. All speculation.

Re:Who owns it? (1)

msbsod (574856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068097)

FAT [theinquirer.net] licensing. If this hadn't been stopped on time, what do you think would have happen if someone refused to accept their "license" scheme?

If Microsoft decide to take over the AJAX market with a patent, they will find one.

Re:Who owns it? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067984)

FAT16 vs. camera builders.

Re:Who owns it? (3, Insightful)

blackmagic1982 (825766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068316)

Dude, why are you reacting this intensely to this? Microsoft is a COMPANY. Their goal is make as much profit as possible by what ever legal means they can. Of COURSE they should used there patients to stiff such products! That is why patients exist. They need to protect there own property. Each and any every one of these innovate new website's should be sued to the hilt if by Microsoft if they can. What are you...some kind of SOCIALIST!?!?!

Re:Who owns it? (1)

80 85 83 83 89 33 (819873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068051)

another "stifling" factor: slow bandwith. unfortunately i only have friggin dial up, and anytime a website has done something that i could have run on my desktop, guess which is a lot slower by comparison. Even when there shouldn't be a lot of back and forth communication that doesn't require bandwith, it seems that it still takes a LOT longer to get results back than if i had done it local. don't know why....

Re:Who owns it? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068140)

Who owns AJAX?

Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY 10022.

AJAX and Comet (5, Insightful)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067869)

Personally, the whole AJAX thing is cool, and at the same time scary.

I'm a web developer, and right now I am really getting into the stride of making very good apps, very quickly.

With AJAX, the expectations will rise considerably. The development effort will go way up...all to do the same things we are doing now.

I know that this sounds stupid to a lot of you...but think about games. Better graphics increase development time and effort, but don't necessarily make a better game.

Soon, EVERY web app will need to be an AJAX app...even if it doesn't need to be.

The age of simple software is once again coming to a close.

Re:AJAX and Comet (5, Interesting)

gbrandt (113294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067938)

Surprisingly the bar is raising up to a point where web developers may have to think like software developers.

Thats the scary part...

Gregor

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068031)

Yeah, I remember back when I/people use to say that people where not programmers just because they made websites. That really has changed since perl, php, and now ajax are became popular ways of doing websites. You really do need a little bit of a programmers background to get something done on the web now.

Re:AJAX and Comet (2, Funny)

VATechTigger (884976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068170)

Does this mean listing the Microsoft Frontpage 97 experience on the resume wont get me in the front door. Damn....

Re:AJAX and Comet (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068266)

Kinda like saying Amish home builders are going to have to start thinking like architects.

They can try, but they aren't erecting any sky-scrapers just by thinking differently.

Re:AJAX and Comet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067967)

you must be a fucking worthless developer

grow some balls you faggot

Re:AJAX and Comet (5, Interesting)

Now.Imperfect (917684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067977)

I encounter the same problem. There is so much out there that it can be frustrating for a web developer.

Personally I felt that age of simple web pages slipped away when javascript started becoming popular.

Now to be a web developer its gotten to the point that its difficult to know fewer than 3-4 languages. And its nearly on par with desktop development; but soon will be the day when desktop and internet will be seamless.

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

gregbains (890793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068296)

Having started making websites around 6 years ago when I was 11, it seems everytime I learn something new another thing becomes popular.
Learn HTML and you need Javascript, learn Javascript you now need PHP, learn PHP and someone wants ASP, learn ASP and along comes AJAX, and flash is in there somewhere too. Then you have CSS layouts becoming (rightly so) popular
This is not a bash at new technology (or old technology becoming popular), but a bash at people seeing something and not realising it is there for a purpose, not for everything.

Re:AJAX and Comet (5, Interesting)

imidan (559239) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067989)

I've been having discussions about that in my job recently. With AJAX as the new web development buzzword, people are coming to me and asking if we can put AJAX into every project. A lot of the web-based applications that I work on would not benefit from asynchronous communication--they really work best using the traditional synchronous request/response model.

But I've implemented a few shiny upgrades to older web apps that we run, and people love 'em, and want AJAX in everything. There are a few applications that we maintain that make significant use of JavaScript, and people want to 'upgrade' the JS to AJAX. I've explained over and over again that AJAX is just a particular thing that you can do with JS, it's not something that you replace JS with.

AJAX is a really cool development method, but it's like any other tool--there are certain situations where it helps, and others where you just don't need it.

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

stagl (569675) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068063)

sounds a lot like flash to me.

Re:AJAX and Comet (3, Insightful)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068128)

sounds a lot like flash to me.

And unfortunately, I'm starting to see sites use it in the same bad ways.
Anyone that decides ajax, java, or flash is a replacement for website navigation is an idiot.

These technologies have plenty of uses to enhance web applications, but as soon as they render my browsers controls unusable, something is wrong.

Re:AJAX and Comet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068211)

We just want interactivity.

Now.

now Now NOW.

Gimme interactivity.

Interactive! Interactive!

P'KAAAA!

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

lasindi (770329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068040)

Soon, EVERY web app will need to be an AJAX app...even if it doesn't need to be.

I'm afraid you may well be right. Most users never touch command-line programs today, even though the command-line is, for many tasks, easier and faster than the GUI equivalent (not to mention the fact that programming for the command line is far simpler). So, yeah I hope it doesn't happen, but it wouldn't be the first time ...

Re:AJAX and Comet (3, Interesting)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068068)

Soon, EVERY web app will need to be an AJAX app...even if it doesn't need to be.

As a user who has had to endure every application being a web application, even if it never needed to be, you're not going to get my sympathy. You're part of the group that created this problem.

I've got no problem with distributed applications, but the idea that everything should be HTML/CSS/Javascript sitting in front of a database is just wrong.

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

krunk4ever (856261) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068078)

This reminds me of my friend and what he did recently. He was contracted to make a website that would display a menu depending on the day of the week. The user gets to input the date he plans to order on and the drop down box will expose what he can order on that day. However, instead of just doing a simple javascript check to see what day it was and updating the drop list, he implemented it with AJAX that would send the date back to the server and the server will send the list of of items available on that day. If the menu changes often and doesn't follow a particular schema, this would've been a good way to do it. However, given the menu is based on the day of the week only, that's just at most 7 menus to store, and each menu being 20 items or less doesn't require that much overhead compared to the rest of the page itself.

But I guess when the thing is "in", everyone wants a part of it.

Re:AJAX and Comet (3, Funny)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068123)

True, but when the US Congress gets around to changing the number of days in a week to reduce the dependence on forign oil, you friend will only have to upgrade the server, not a bazillion web browsers out there.

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068278)

I guess it depends on how often the 20 items or so change. I just completed my first ajax app today and it's got a similar type of very simple interface and I thought the ajax method worked better and faster than the post/reload page method or create multiple javascript array variables. My app let's secretaries select a faculty member from a drop down list and then the courses taught by the faculty appear so the secretary can select the course.

Yes, it' simple (but I wanted something simple to get the hang of it) and at 50 faculty teaching an average of 3 courses, it wouldn't have been a huge chore to build the arrays from a one time database query. But this way I learned a new tool for the toolbox and I'll have some base code I can steal when I want to do something more complicated..

For my next trick I'd like to do something cool with seating charts and interactive photos that users can drag around the screen, all web based.

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068105)

Until AJAX can be implemented with a tried-and-true method with absolutely no breakage in the traditional flow of movement between pages (being able to recycle data and regular page transitions using Back and Forward), there is no possible way that AJAX will become another requirement of web applications. As it stands, its a very popular trend, but it really isn't holding much weight despite what the average web developer may think.

With AJAX, the expectations will rise considerably.

I think I'd call that requirement's creep on the client's part. There is no expectation to use AJAX, because as most developers realize, it's not reliable. And anything employed on that Web that is unreliable tends to buckle pretty fast.

The development effort will go way up...all to do the same things we are doing now.

And you earn more for adding a 'nifty' feature, so if someone wants some AJAX integration, where lies the problem?

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

delphi125 (544730) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068119)

>The age of simple software is once again coming to a close.

What makes you think that AJAX won't be made simple?

For example, how hard is it going to be to detect and download new posts in forums (such as /.) dynamically, if you have a thread open in a tab? Not much harder than automating hitting refresh, with some XML and XSLT.

And it won't be needed for everything, by any means. Just a certain class of web apps which need to be able to run on multiple browsers (and also on dial-up/cell phones).

Re:AJAX and Comet (2, Interesting)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068162)

Would be interesting to see slashdot with a new ajax-based comment view.
Right now they have flat, nested, no comments, and threaded.

Take something like threaded, then instead of refreshing the whole page when you drill down, just the pull down the comments for that thread.

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068229)

Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] have two dynamic comment modes available. They were written years ago before the AJAX hype, and use inline frames, if I remember correctly.

Re:AJAX and Comet (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068308)

The greasemonkey script is supposed to do this for slashdot. Haven't upgraded it yet myself.

Probably a prelude to changing the way it works (2, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067872)

Mr Gates is probably laying the framework for changes in the AJAX support in IE aimed at breaking competitors products.

Re:Probably a prelude to changing the way it works (1)

^me^ (129402) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068024)

Their implementation is already different from everyone else's.

Non-IE:
var xmlhttp=new XMLHttpRequest()

IE5:
var xmlhttp=new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")

IE6:
req = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");

Re:Probably a prelude to changing the way it works (2, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068041)

Mr Gates is probably laying the framework for changes in the AJAX support in IE aimed at breaking competitors products.

It's true that in the upcoming Internet Explorer 7, the method by which you instantiate the XMLHttpRequest object will change. But you have it completely backwards - they are changing it to be a native object, to be compatible with all the other browsers that implement it, instead of its original ActiveX implementation found in Internet Explorer 5.x and 6.0.

Web 2.0? (2, Interesting)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067875)

That has to be the worst idea to come out of a marketing drone since synergistic paradigm. At least Microsoft is actually working on new stuff lately. Google and Firefox have urged them to restart their old habits of copying that we haven't seen since the mid nineties.

Memos as Press Release (2, Informative)

MagikSlinger (259969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067982)

I agree with PBS's Robert X Cringely: the leak's just a distraction [pbs.org] . It's only there to make Wall St. think Microsoft is still relevant and on the edge of the wave.

Re:Memos as Press Release (2, Insightful)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068018)

It's only there to make Wall St. think Microsoft is still relevant and on the edge of the wave.

Please, with the 360 launch, this isn't even a blip on anybody's radar.

Re:Memos as Press Release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068086)

Oh, I didn't know investors read Slashdot. Thanks for the info.

Re:Web 2.0? (1)

sedyn (880034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068014)

New stuff? Amen to that...

I for one welcome our new light-blue site of doom overlords.

In other news... (2, Insightful)

sabre307 (451605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067886)

Later this year Microsoft is planning to release a hard drive based MP3 player.

These guys are so far behind the times it's not even funny. The next thing you know they'll be talking about how we really need something to search the web with, or an online way to look up an address. Hey, here's an idea, we'll make a website that contains information about stuff and make it editable by everyone.. We can call it a Wiki!

Re:In other news... (1)

kers (847541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067915)

Uhm. No. There is already busses on Hawaii called that.

Other than that: it was a cool idea, but it would never work in reality.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067927)

The next thing you know they'll be talking about how we really need something to search the web with,

What gets me about MSFT is that they aren't even drinking their own kool aid. Gates's going off about how they can out-search Google. Uh huh, and tell me why do I use google and put "site:support.microsoft.com" in the search bar? Oh yeah its because your own product sucks.

Re:In other news... (4, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068137)

Maybe they'd call it a "Miki" and get sued by Disney, and both companies will drive each other into bankruptcy?

We can only hope.

again... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067889)

Dammit Zonk, stop linking to the Escapi-- oh, wait... nevermind...

Just imagine... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067898)

...how powerful and profitable Microsoft would be if they weren't always five years late to the party.

Re:Just imagine... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067964)

The race doesn't end at the starting line. It ends at the finishing line.

KFG

Re:Just imagine... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068259)

The race doesn't end at the starting line. It ends at the finishing line.

Logic? I thought the finishing line implies that you are out of business,

CC.

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14067987)

...how powerful and profitable Microsoft would be if they weren't always five years late to the party.

Yeah, and considering how many Microsoft products turn out to be lemons, that's the last party I'd want to attend...

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068138)

I don't care who it is, I'm gonna pass on the lemonparty.

Re:Just imagine... (5, Interesting)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068002)

Just imagine how powerful and profitable Microsoft would be if they weren't always five years late to the party.

Just imagine how...status quo or diminished...Microsoft would be if they weren't intentionally five years late to the party. Seriously.

5 or 6 years ago Microsoft was hugely pushing a lot of very advanced web technologies, including remote scripting, behaviours, client-side XML data islands and heavily programmatically controllable transformations, and even the much-maligned ActiveX. These enabled some remarkable web applications (ActiveX, for instance, allowed you to have auto-updating rich client on the desktop, but retaining all of the advantages of the document model of HTML).

It really was a fantastic platform that they created, and they were light years ahead of everyone else. Of course it was entirely tied to Microsoft's platform and browser, which was why you didn't see it much on public websites, but for internal teams that were up on their chops (most aren't, unfortunately), there were some amazing solutions created.

However Microsoft has a so-called-problem that shops like Salesforce don't - they are pulling in billions upon billions a year from their, err, "legacy" products, and often they're their own biggest competitor. The last thing they want to do is pull the carpet out from under their cash cows and enter into a new competition as a new entrant of sorts, eliminating a huge source of income, and a competitive advantage. It's for this reason that the IE team was disbanded years ago, after they shot far ahead of everyone else.

The revisionist history where people imagine that Microsoft is behind because they're just not as advanced as their competitors really is laughable. Microsoft was a mile ahead and then decided they really wanted to run the 20K instead of the 100m.

Re:Just imagine... (4, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068074)

The revisionist history where people imagine that Microsoft is behind because they're just not as advanced as their competitors really is laughable.

Er, "behind" and "less advanced" are synonymous.

Microsoft was a mile ahead and then decided they really wanted to run the 20K instead of the 100m.

If anything that's backwards. Microsoft sprinted to get halfway decent Javascript and XML support, and then decided they'd won the race and stopped dead. There hasn't been an Internet Explorer rendering engine update for over four years now.

Meanwhile, Gecko/Presto/KHTML have made steady progress and had the majority of the capabilities of what will be in Internet Explorer 7 years ago. Microsoft have acted like the hare racing against the tortoise - arrogant enough not to take the competition seriously, and have been overtaken while they weren't looking.

Re:Just imagine... (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068095)

Er, "behind" and "less advanced" are synonymous.

No they aren't. Using your own analogy, that's like saying the tortoise can run faster because in a given race he's in the lead - he might be ahead in that race (technology is a race with no winning line), but in no way is he a faster runner.

and had the majority of the capabilities of what will be in Internet Explorer 7 years ago

I think you missed my point.

the reality is scarier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068204)

that they can be late to the game by several years and still dominate by shear force of money and will.

Microsoft doesnt have to take chances, they only need to see whats happening and join the game once they see who the winner is.

Late to the race doesn't make Microsoft a loser. (5, Insightful)

no_pets (881013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067906)

This isn't the first time Microsoft has been late to the race. They are the masters of catch up and making the most of what someone else pioneered.

Slashdotters are quick to laugh at Micro$oft, but Microsoft is the one laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:Late to the race doesn't make Microsoft a loser (1)

0kComputer (872064) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068094)

Kinda like the old saying "the second mouse gets the cheese."

Re:Late to the race doesn't make Microsoft a loser (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068189)

"Isn't the first time"? This isn't the TENTH time! I've lost count, ran out of fingers.

Re:Late to the race doesn't make Microsoft a loser (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068191)

Sometimes they catch up. Sometimes they lose. In the 90s they had a reputation for catching up and winning. This decade they mostly haven't. MS doesn't have the clout it used to.

I thank M$ (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067913)

> [...]This time it's web-based software using technology such as AJAX (that MS 'invented but failed to exploit')

There you have it Slashdotters. Here, Microsoft has some innovation to show. Sincerely, I have been slashdotting for a long time and can say I have seen very little if anything about M$ being recognized for its innovation.

This I believe, is one of them. Thank you M$.

Re:I thank M$ (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068180)

I wouldn't really call it innovation. People were doing the same sort of thing beforehand with inline frame hacks. XMLHttpRequest is nicer, sure, but it's a refinement of existing practice rather than something brand-new.

About the only thing I can think of that comes close to being innovative from Microsoft regarding browsers was their "channel" support in Internet Explorer 4, which was subsequently discontinued when the "push" fad ran out of steam. Of course, it was highly derivative of other non-browser efforts, but as far as I'm aware, Microsoft were the first to put it into a browser.

unseen memo by Bill Gates (3, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067914)

Memo to self-

Stop writing memos.

Ajax the bleach (0, Redundant)

msbsod (574856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067948)

Someone take Ajax [cleansweepsupply.com] the bleach and scrub those Ajax Javascript stories for good, please! 'nuff of Ajax!!!

Failed to exploit? Nah. (3, Funny)

abscondment (672321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067952)

Oh, they managed to exploit it [microsoft.com] , albeit indirectly.

Failed to exploit? (0, Troll)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14067953)

This time it's web-based software using technology such as AJAX (that MS 'invented but failed to exploit').

No problem ... I'm sure that systems running Microsoft's implementation of Ajax will be successfully rooted^H^H^H^H^H^H^exploited in short order.

Conflict (3, Interesting)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068011)

But with this web-based/AJAX thingies it is a bit a conflict of interest for Microsoft. MS desperately tries to jump onto the services band-wagon. But the truth is that their main revenue comes from shrink-wrapped software (like Windows or Office). They *try* to laverage that to other areas but they fail miserably.

Take MS vs. Google. Now Google still IMHO does everything before MS, and then MS goes "me too" and issues something similar but yet worse than Google offering. In normal situation - meaning MS has no money to pump from OS/software revenue into new markets they would not get a chance against Google - they will simply bankrupt. Right now they pump the money but I doubt they get any revenue (even to go on zero line) from their web services.

Now as far as I understand they wan't to couple web-based software (more like service) with shrink-wrappedsoftware like Windows and Office. I base that on various interviews with MS execs about MS product line I've read. But this is like flawed idea from the begining. The most valuable part (IMHO) about web software is that it only needs a browser and server infrastructure on the other end. So in fact you do not need to pay any special attention to the client side (as you would have to with shrink-wrapped software). So for e.g. you could have a big extranet with 5000 clients across the world, using one sophisticated application by web and only thing you need is decent server architecture and on client side - commodity: standard browser running on any OS, maybe a printer or smth. to get the job done.

This is completely the opposite of having fat clients loaded with bloated OS and software suites - the MS way.

So I see a conflict here.

AJAX good for large services , not small (2, Interesting)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068016)

AJAX is a good idea for larger services, like Gmail, that many people use and it is completely seamless. However, AJAX is much harder to code, and it's not necessary for a smaller company, which doesn't need the marginal gains vs. the coding. Still, for a large company like Google, it takes less time to load (which makes Gmail seem better) and also saves bandwidth.

Re:AJAX good for large services , not small (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068129)

I disagree. It is a tool. It works best when used correctly. I have a small app that constantly checks for database updates and refreshes a frame when there is an update. Tiny app, but AJAX could make it significantly better with only a tiny bit of code and an AJAX plug in. The larger and more complexe the service, the more fore-thought and design that is needed. But the tool is just as effective, in small or large projects.

-Rick

Re:AJAX good for large services , not small (3, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068153)

AJAX is a joke to code if you have any idea what you are doing.

1. Use an existing RPC library, like JSON-RPC for java, to translate your objects and methods. Don't re-invent the wheel.

2. Use an existing AJAX library to wrap the XMLHttpRequest object, like Sarissa.

3. Sprinkle wherever it fits.

It is quie simple actually. I was able to AJAX-ify a few pages of an exisiting app in under a day, giving them quite a more responsive feel.

Re:AJAX good for large services , not small (1)

MicahStevens (878958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068254)

Agreed, I don't spend any additional time coding AJAX type things, it's just a different technique to deal with the data. I've never thought it was more time consuming or more difficult.

Another memo found (1)

msbsod (574856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068028)

"Bill, is this your memo: 'how to run a government 101 at 11:00' ?"
"No, it's George's. I took the advanced class last year."

Never stay up past 11:35am (2, Funny)

DigitalHammer (581235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068055)

Did anyone else first read the title as "Another Baleeted Microsoft Memo"? :/

Re:Never stay up past 11:35am (2, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068091)

No, if it was a baleeted memo, it would be "Dear Bill Gates, How do you type with boxing gloves on?"

Re:Never stay up past 11:35am (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068127)

/me pretends to be Ballmer & throws a chair at DigitalHammer
No. Nobody read it as "Baleeted"
That's not even a word

Can't you people just leave me alone?

Another memo (4, Funny)

psykocrime (61037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068060)

Zonk has sent out another memo heralding the latest big development in the industry, as he sees it. This time it's web-based software using technology such as DUPES (that Slashdot 'invented but failed to exploit'). The Economist says 'As in previous cases, what is new is not the story itself, but the fact that Slashdotters are taking it seriously.' Commander Taco of Slashdot decided against writing a memo. 'Posting dupes is easy,' he says, whereas 'professional quality editing is a whole lot harder.'"

lmao @ Mark Benioff (2, Funny)

fbg111 (529550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068126)

From TFA: This prompted yet another memo from Marc Benioff, the marketing-savvy boss of Salesforce.com, a leading proponent of the software as a service model. If Microsoft were serious about Web 2.0 and Microsoft Live, he suggested helpfully in an internal memo sent to the press, it should rename its traditional software Microsoft Dead. Web 2.0, he said, was not about old companies constrained by their legacy products but new firms such as, naturally, Salesforce.com, Writely, Numsum, Zimbra and Goffice.

More MS BS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068136)

UNIX box before Microsoft knew what an IP address or modem was. Novell provided MS-DOS with its first really acceptable TCP/IP stack. Ya, I know DEC had one but most PCs at the time didn't have the memory to run it. Winsock was a transplant for Windows and Novell made it relatively small and deployable.

Microsoft's success is in monopolization of the market, bundling of software with major vendors, FUD with naive management. What they can't steal, they borrow. What they can't borrow they might have a joint venture to get a start. If your really lucky, and few are they will buy you.

You could not convince me after this many years of Microsoft that Redmond does not intentionally design their products to hinder the competition.

memo? (1)

bufalo_1973 (898479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068186)

memo (in Spanish) [altavista.com] ? as in the first meaning? :P

Argh, DUPE! (1)

zataang (596856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068193)

How come nobody's noticed this YET? Or perhaps, it invited way too many hits last time /. posted it!

I hate AJAX (3, Interesting)

barfy (256323) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068194)

What was a nice thing for solving problems otherwise difficult to solve, has turned into something that is making my expensive computer grind to a halt. Currently no browser likes to have multiple commercial pages open at the same time (which is how I often browse). Everybody from the content hoster, the ad folks, the editorial, and design folks gotta have some Ajax running. VERY VERY little does anything useful from either a UI or Content view, but in the end makes browsing slower, makes my computer slower, and makes me hate the F77ck3rs who think Ajax is cool. I hope this comes to a quick near death like when Java was cool.

Re:I hate AJAX (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068240)

So, what you're saying is that you like Ajax about as much as you like Flash?

It's called 'Atlas' (4, Informative)

1000101 (584896) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068232)

Microsoft has a project called 'Atlas' that has a set of prebuilt controls and javascript files that you can use for your projects. It can be found at asp.net [asp.net] . The nice thing about this project is you can define an Atlas (it's just AJAX really) control the same way you define a typical asp control ( vs. ) and then link in the pre-defined .js files. I have been reading about AJAX for a while now on Slashdot (my employeer has been using it for quite a while now and I didn't even know it) but hadn't tried it out. Atlas is so simple that I had my first page converted in a matter of minutes. An earlier submitter pointed out that not all pages need to be converted or built using AJAX but the customer is demanding it. This is an interesting topic, and I have considered this myself. I have found that almost every page in the types of websites that I create don't need this technology. Most of them are your typical form where you just insert data and update a database. If you don't need a high level of interactivity, AJAX might not be the best option.

Microsoft invented AJAX? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068262)

What a nonsense.
Even further, they don't even support it correctly. XmlHttpRequest is a standard object in E4X (an ECMA standard), but IE supports it only via an ActiveX Object instance.

Re:Microsoft invented AJAX? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14068329)

Oh, get it right. XmlHttpRequest was implemented as a standard long after, and only because of, Microsoft's ActiveX implementation, which has been around since IE4. Before that, Microsoft had a Remote Scripting library for ASP, which allows the same functionality as "AJAX". The Remote Scripting library even worked in Netscape 4, which was a common browser at the time I built my first "AJAX" application.

Do you know what "AJAX" is? It's a term coined by some overpaid design guru talking head to describe technology that has been around, and in heavy use by non-public webapps, for many years.

Microsoft pioneered this whole way of thinking, even if they didn't implement it very creatively on many of their sites, and many of their better ideas (CSS expressions & behaviors, XML data islands) have still not become standards, while others have.

And, yes, I am posting this from Firefox, running on an Ubuntu distro. I am not a Microsoft apologist, but mindlessly parrotting off commonly-believed falsehoods just pisses me off. When IE 5 was first released, it was a groundbreaking app, better than anything else on the market, and many of its innovative features are still unknown to most of the A-List, blogorati circle-jerk web-brochure designers who think making a glorified to-do list is "changing the face of the web".

Writing code.... (2, Interesting)

KJE (640748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068269)

After you said that writing code is a whole lot harder than writing a memo, I got to thinking: When was the last time Bill Gates coded anything? I mean I was just wondering. For all the supposedly evil things his company has done, albeit with him at the helm, he started out as a geek. Geeks like to do geeking things, I don't care how old you are... what do you think he's done recently?

They developed the XmlHttpRequest (2, Insightful)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14068291)

to provide the "X" in AJAX, but the concept was envisioned by Netscape all along.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?