×

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!

Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the higher-number-means-better-code dept.

177

An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article about Microsoft's move to rename WinFX to .Net Framework 3.0. Microsoft has also announced the availability of the beta version of the MSDN Wiki, the company's first step toward allowing customers to contribute to Microsoft's developer documentation. From the article: "It is purely a branding change, company officials said. The gist of the issue is that Microsoft has two successful developer brands in WinFX and .Net, and the company has seen 320,000 downloads of WinFX -- and 700 signed GoLive licenses -- since the December Community Technology Preview, and more than 35 million downloads of the .Net Framework since the November launch. "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

177 comments

First post (-1, Offtopic)

saphena (322272) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509876)

Can it really be true?

Re:First post (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509942)

Sure!

Windows Vista .NET 3.0 is the product everyone is just dying for!

Or, Revenge Of The Marketing Department Nerds .NET 3.0!

Pick your poison, drink up and be happy.

Re:First post (1)

codequak (981535) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510004)

It didn't say anywhere that .NET 3.0 is meant to be a replacement for Web 2.0 ... since .NET is a framework and Web 2.0 is a collection of technologies behind a new way of thinking about web applications. .NET 2.0 existed before Web 2.0 was even coined, so they are not playing the feature number game.

Icredible (5, Funny)

reydelamirienda (892327) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509879)

Wow, how innovative! I wish the PHP documentation had user contributions too...

Re:Icredible (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15509985)

I wish the PHP documentation had the functional specification, rather than forcing user contributions to deduce functionality. It's been a bit of a sick joke, which fortunately I'm not forced to work with on a daily basis.

Vista? (2, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510092)

TFA says, "Microsoft is continuing to roll out--slowly but surely--new branding that will be part of its overall Windows Vista campaign". So, supposedly, this is part of the marketing strategy for Vista.

I guess when your product isn't good enough, you need other ways to get it sold.

Re:Icredible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510152)

wow i wish you would learn how to spell, mr. icredible.

Re:Icredible (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510416)

The PHP docs have an unedited "comment" system which is completely different from a Wiki. I wish the PHP docs were a Wiki so that wrong information could be cleanly removed and whatever debate about it could go on a "discussion" page.

FROST PIOST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15509880)

SUCK IT WEINERS

Re:FROST PIOST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510287)

fuck your own ass!

Web 3.0 (4, Funny)

PhreakinPenguin (454482) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509881)

I'd like to propose that the first standard of Web 3.0 be to stop coining stupid phrases for every day things. Web 2.0, Dot Com's, etc.

Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15509889)

That feature was still buggy and it's been dropped from Web 3.0. We hope to include it in Web 3.1, but don't hold your breath.

Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15509883)

.NET 1.3 to .NET 2.0 was practically an entire different platform, and I can't get any of my .NET 1.3 software to compile and run right under .NET 2.0.

And now .NET 3.0 is literally an entirely different platform family from .NET 2.0?? Kind of like how JavaScript has nothing to do with Java?

Given that they're the most powerful platform vendor in the world, with the ability to force adoption of virtually any programming environment, language or library that they choose, Microsoft sure does seem to act desperate sometimes.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (3, Insightful)

rakslice (90330) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510012)

Yeah...

From the article: "Microsoft has decided to avoid any confusion in the naming scheme for its core developer technology [...]"

Before my brain shuts down in order to protect itself and I start drooling on myself, I should say that it's one thing for tech journalists to be clueless and incoherent; it's another entirely for them to report something that's exactly the opposite of what's happening just because it's in the corporate press release.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510013)

Wow are you full of cr@p. There's never been a 1.3 platform EVER. Shenanigans!

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510169)

He may be muddled because of 'Microsoft .NET Compact Framework 1.0 SP3 Developer' which comes with MS Visual Studio 2005. I think it's the equivalent of the .NET 1.0/1.1 SDK...then again maybe not, I never do .NET development.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (5, Informative)

AaronBrethorst (860210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510015)

I think you mean version 1.1 of the .NET Framework, not 1.3. Also, we published a very detailed list of breaking changes from 1.1 to 2.0 on MSDN [microsoft.com] . We never take a breaking change lightly, every single one of these would have been reviewed with a great deal of scrutiny to ensure that we really were doing the right thing under the circumstances.

With regard to .NET 3.0 (no longer WinFX 3.0), it's the next version of the .NET Framework. As a result, it includes new features, like WPF (Avalon), WCF (Indigo), and a ton of other cool, new things. This is merely a marketing change, no more.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510138)

*coughshillcough*

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510181)

*coughshillcough*

Given that his .sig says "Yes, I do work for Microsoft" and has done for ages, and also that his comments are generally informed and relevant, I'm not sure how you can call him a shill. :-)

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510189)

If you get a chance to pass along my comment (below) to someone in Microsoft's marketing department I would appreciate it.

I have largely avoided Microsoft products over the past 20 years because I couldn't easily figure out what is what. It seems like every six months or so Microsoft renames their technologies in an effort to make them sound new. The actual result (in my case anyway) has been to think "Crap! I just got through learning FOO and now they're dropping it for BAR! I'm going to forget about Microsoft as it is clearly a technological treadmill and the people involved have no long term vision of where they are going!".

The fact that BAR is just FOO with a new name and a few tweaks doesn't change things. Now I can't tell when I am reading a three month old article about FOO if *any* of it still applies. It is all incredibly *DAMN* frustrating!

What I want are products with major, minor, and patch version numbers. The product name should never EVER change. Patch number changes should be fixes and only break existing code that depended in some way on the bug. Minor number changes should be enhancements with zero breakage of existing code. Major number changes can break existing code but should try not to.

Thank you for reading and I hope someone in marketing will get the message. I like what I have seen of the latest crop of Microsoft development tools but I am too spooked by Microsoft marketing to believe investing my time in learning the ins and outs won't ultimately be wasted.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (2)

mycall (802802) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510214)

Yeah right. How many years has Win32 and DirectX been in use?

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (4, Informative)

AaronBrethorst (860210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510233)

Actually, I can tell you how to do one better than that. Go to the weblog for my Corporate VP, S. Somasegar [msdn.com] , and leave that feedback for him there, or by sending him mail through the Email page. He does read the feedback posted there, and tries to always respond back.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1)

BalanceOfJudgement (962905) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510250)

Ok so this is totally the wrong place to ask this question, but you being a Microsofty and all you'd be the quickest way for me to get an answer to this question...

Is .NET 3.0 REALLY just the next version of .NET? Meaning, can I open up my 2.0 app and only need to change a few things to make it work on 3.0? Or will it be something migrating from MFC to .NET 1.1, where you had to basically completely rewrite everything?

I ask because this actually might impact my job and this is the first I have ever heard of .NET 3.0..

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (5, Informative)

shayborg (650364) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510355)

You should have to change almost nothing to get a .NET 2.0 app working in .NET 3.0. The new version is essentially .NET 2.0 plus WinFx.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510388)

Okay.

So, what are the implications for Mono and portability? Does incorporation of entirely proprietary WinFX essentially make alternate, cross-platform implementations of .Net 3.0 virtually impossible?

I'll put it this way: if it does, I'm alot less interested.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1)

xamomike (831092) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510468)

While the guy from Microsoft wrote an informative post (so I can't blame him for anything), I do agree with the parent about confusing updates and ever-changing technologies. There is nothing more frustrating than relying on a code base that changes drastically (hint: DirectX), especially when finding the right documentation for the right version can even be a challenge. 1.1 to 2.0 documented? Sure, to a point. But try to find code to do the same things in MDX1 that will work the same in MDX2. The changes are drastic, I'm sure for the better, but there seems to be little long term vision/shared goals within the company. Just a constant upchurning of changes. I mean really, if you can't get your product structure right the first two revisions, maybe you should let someone else do it.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510259)

Please, never make another marketing change again! Make changes based on logic!

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (5, Informative)

russryan (981552) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510281)

The rebranded WinFX (now .NET Framework 3.0) contains the RTM release of .NET Framework 2.0 (the runtime) as well as WPF (Avalon), WWF, and WCF (Indigo). It represents a superset of the 2.0 runtime. Yes, I work there too.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (-1, Troll)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510352)

This is pretty funny from my perspective. I'm a web developer and have recently been informed I'm going to have to start using .Net as some of our clients have decided they "must have it" (the fact they have no idea what it is, or why they need it is of course irrelevent). I'm a Java/PHP guy, so wasn't exactly over enthusiastic at this news. One of my main reasons for not wanting to get on the MS treadmill (apart from the obvious ethical reasons) was that locking yourself and your clients into one companys products WILL result in more expensive development, and less choice (which is what MS is all about).

Here's a prime example; one day code written against a framework will work. One "windows update" later, time to rewrite! Oh how I'm going to laugh!!! [breaks down into hysterical sobbing]

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (3, Insightful)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510396)

Since the .NET dll's live peacefully with each other across versions, you could still be writing .NET 1.0 applications if you really wanted to.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510407)

You should be happy to get away from Java. Very, very happy.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510153)

'Entirely different platform'? I thought WinFX was based on what MS started with .NET. Renaming it to .NET sounds alot more sensible than 'WinFX', which just sounds corny and gimmicky. Atleast when people hear '.NET' they think of the Internet and everything it's done.

Interesting to note that the WinFX Wikipedia article is now redirecting to '.NET Framework 3.0'

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510420)

The decision to include the WinFX APIs in the .Net framework is a solid decision. The decision to call it the .NET Framework 3.0 is not. It really ought to be 2.1 or 2.5 or something. A lot of new APIs are being added, but all the old stuff is still there, unchanged.

This numbering scheme will make people think this version will have the same impact as the 1.1 -> 2.0 migration, and help further the perception that Microsoft is doing this for Fire and Motion [joelonsoftware.com] reasons.

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1)

alexmipego (903944) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510156)

Obviously you don't have any clue about what you're talking about. There is no .Net 1.3; .Net 2.0 is backward compatible and 3.0 is just the 2.0 CLR, Libraries and C# 2.0/VB 8 with the addition of Windows Presentation, Communication, Workflow and InforCard Foundations. Nothing in the .Net CLR will change, just add some new libraries.
Some more details on my blog: http://www.alexandre-gomes.com/ [alexandre-gomes.com]

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (2, Funny)

xbrownx (459399) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510204)

Maybe he was talking about upgrading from Java 1.3 to .NET 2.0, I can see how that would cause many problems...

Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (1)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510505)

And now .NET 3.0 is literally an entirely different platform family from .NET 2.0?? Kind of like how JavaScript has nothing to do with Java?


I love how the well informed respond...

Actually, .NET 3.0 is .NET 2.0 with all the new Vista stuff strapped on it, like WinFX, etc. .NET 3.0 STILL USES THE 2.0 CLR. (Get where I am going here?) It is .NET 2.0 with new features that also run under the same .NET 2.0 CLR...

This time they didn't change the .NET 2.0 platform, they just added new stuff to it, and new features that also run on the same CLR.

So instead of changes in the CLR, you just a bunch of new features and technology to use, like 3D application desing using XAML as an example.

Understand?

Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (-1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509886)

Almost everyone already has a Javascript enabled browser. .NET 3.0 is likely to be a huge download and Joe User will not bother to download it. Only people that buy new computers with Vista Forever installed will be able to use Net 3.0 applications. Web 2.0 is available now. No large business targetting the general public will write web applications targetting .NET 3.0 for years.

Until then Web 2.0 will be picking up more and more steam.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

DavidLeblond (267211) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509898)

Huh? If the website uses .NET Framework 3.0, you don't need to download the .NET Framework. Do you need to download it now for ASP pages?

You can use .NET as a backend for "Web 2.0" you know... "AJAX" != PHP. You can use ASP too, whether it be .NET 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509956)

That sounds very exciting, but will .NET 3.0 actually embrace Web 2.0, and make it easier to write Web 2.0 applications? If not, then people who want to use Ajax will continue to switch to things like Ruby on Rails [onlamp.com] .

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

Philoushka (981532) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509986)

The .NET Framework does not currently have Ajax enabled features intrinsicly built in, but Microsoft does have a project in developement to enable your ASP.NET applications with Ajax capabilities - Atlas.NET http://atlas.asp.net/ [asp.net]

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509998)

It already does. There are a couple of excellent AJAX libraries available for ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0.

Microsoft has also released Atlas beta, which in my opinion is very elegant and effective. (It currently only works with Firefox and IE but should support everything else when it reaches 1.0)

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

chriseyre2000 (603088) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510032)

The dotnet framework already has something very much like ruby on rails: monorail (you can google for it)

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

phdhell (249045) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509905)

Hmmm, until they package the runtime with IE 7.0, which they distribute automagically to anyone using Windows Update...
(of course this'll be a security update for IE6...)

Suddenly you need this Net 3.0 to view your messages just so on hotmail....

Sounds horribly familiar...

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (2, Informative)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510036)

.NET 2.0 web technology is cross browser compatible. It produces standards compliant xhtml and JavaScript. Its beta AJAX Atlas library currently works equally well in both Firefox and IE.

The fact that they decided to make their hotmail service work "better" in IE is a child of the shameful proprietary Active X web that they tried to create.

Their current approach to web client technology is based on a completely different philosophy that embraces standards.

If you study the .NET framework you will notice that there are not any plans to embed it into the browsers like Java or Flash plugins currently do.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (2, Informative)

Philoushka (981532) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509930)

From TFA: it's about the .Net Framework (the programming object model), not about the nebulous "web 2.0" bullcrap. No digg.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (5, Informative)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509972)

Please, educate yourself before trolling utter rubbish like the one in your comment. Some people might believe it.

The .NET technology that is used for web browsers is ASP.NET. ASP.NET produces standards compliant xhtml and JavaScript that is sent to your browser. The only place where you will need to upgrade to .NET 3.0 is in the web server. Server side browser technologies never leave the server. They translate its content to something that your browser will understand. When you click "view source" you are not viewing .NET, you are viewing its output.

You don't need to download .NET 3.0 to run .NET 3.0 browser apps in the same way that you don't need to download PHP, Python, Ruby or Perl to your computer to use Slashdot or Digg or Google, etc.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510091)

Slashdot is my education!

Thanks for the correction, though I hope you understand that the concern of accessibility I have is valid rather than dismissing it as a troll. It cannot compete with Web 2.0, but it can enable it, as other posts as well as yours have pointed out.

Let's hope they can release something innovative.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510158)

Slashdot is my education too. I am sorry for snaping at you like I did. I have learned a lot from this community, however, it seems to be completely anti MS to the point of having people wilfully spreading misinformation.

I believe using the right tool for the right job. Every tool shines in a particular situation. I like Debian for database, file, print and domain servers. I like Ubuntu and SuSE for bussiness clients. I like .NET servers for web services. I like Windows for games and engineering apps and Macs for... well... "cool people", mainly graphic artists and 14 year old girls. ;-)

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510099)

Please, educate yourself before trolling utter rubbish like the one in your comment. Some people might believe it.

That's ironic...

You don't need to download .NET 3.0 to run .NET 3.0 browser apps in the same way that you don't need to download PHP, Python, Ruby or Perl to your computer to use Slashdot or Digg or Google, etc.

That's where you're wrong. While .NET is a great technology on the server side where it can send HTML to the browsers, it does act as a client too, especially in Vista, where it has a new rich graphical UI framework (Avalon) and is basically the equivalent of Java's applets. The graphical UI of older .NET apps is called WinForms. .NET apps can run in the browser or as standalone exe files.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510171)

Yes, .NET targets rich client apps and browser apps. However, to use the web you use a web browser, not a rich client. The only way that they could break compatibility and force you to download the .NET runtime is to convert IE into a rich client platform. Could they do that? Yes they could. Are they giving any indication that they are going to do that in the near future? Not at all.

About rich clients with .NET web services. While they work great with winforms they also work great with GTK. I developed a live scoreboard that transfers data from a rich WinForms client to .NET web services. I am currently developing linux GTK# clients for Windows .NET web services with mono.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510299)

Yes, .NET targets rich client apps and browser apps. However, to use the web you use a web browser, not a rich client. The only way that they could break compatibility and force you to download the .NET runtime is to convert IE into a rich client platform. Could they do that? Yes they could. Are they giving any indication that they are going to do that in the near future? Not at all.

Yea "not at all", they've only allowed .NET appplications to run in Internet Explorer 7 right off the web (in sandboxed mode, like applets and Flash), and you "only" can intermix it with existing HTML pages and you can "only" communicate from .NET to JScript that operates within HTML and back.

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510334)

This is some very interesting information. Maybe I am wrong. Some more research might alter my perspective on the technology.

Could you provide some links or examples please? :-)

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510520)

Oh, you mean the same way ActiveX, Java, and Flash have done it for years?

Re:Web 2.0 beats Net 3.0 (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510553)

Oh, you mean the same way ActiveX, Java, and Flash have done it for years?

Yes, in exactly that way :D

I'm not arguing it's not been done before. I'm personally making my money with JS and Flash coding, among other things.
But it also has to be noted that WinFX has the advantage if being preinstalled with Windows Vista, which is very important given how huge it is.

Flash also came with Windows 2000 and XP and I hope Microsoft cheats itself into delivering Flash 8 with Vista as well, but it's not guaranteed. Even if doesn't god bless Flash is a pretty small download (Flash 9 will be 1MB or less still).

Adobe knows WinFX and Vista are their enemy that can kill Flash, up to the community to wake up and realize it too (actually a lot of people already realize it).

Silent installs (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510164)

Umm how many people got Net2 runtimes via autoupdate, while they are on 24/7 broadband? Few people will even know it came, so the raw size of it wont matter to most people in the long run.

One-upsmanship (0, Flamebait)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509903)

Micorsoft just wants to stay ahead of everyone else, so Web 2.0 means .Net 3.0, Web 3.0 will mean .Net 4.0 and so on. This is their cheeky way of making it seem like they are ahead of the game. Branding doesn't make up for crappy products.

Re:One-upsmanship (-1, Troll)

jiushao (898575) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509961)

Well, they were way ahead of everyone when it comes to the Web 2.0 stuff.

Re:One-upsmanship (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510039)

Troll, huh? One fairly major part of the whole Web 2.0 buzz is AJAX. AJAX (at least as it's usually implemented) relies on the XMLHttpRequest object, which was created by MS.

Now it's true that noone really used it for a long time, partly because it was only implemented by IE. It's also true that you can simulate asynchronous requests using hidden frames (something my company did back in 99), but that also never really took off (and probably won't now).

I think it's fair to say that MS were ahead of everyone else. I think it's also fair to say that they completely squandered their lead, sitting on a technology that they didn't have the vision to use to the full.

Re:One-upsmanship (0, Flamebait)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510126)

Troll, huh? One fairly major part of the whole Web 2.0 buzz is AJAX. AJAX (at least as it's usually implemented) relies on the XMLHttpRequest object, which was created by MS.

AJAX, like much of the IT technology is yet another brainless wave of hype and fawning over a wheel re-invented for a 1000th time. After massive, convoluted, unmaintainable, sluggish, super-sensitive to smallest browser incompatibilites AJAX applications sweep the web, causing untold havoc and sufferring (just look at AJAX compatibility with various browsers at major sites like DailyKos) there will be a "new", "innovative", "fresh" idea called "server side applications" and "lightweight web client 7.0" and all will be excited at this genius attempt to make user's life easier. Lemmings will follow an masse extrolling the virtues of this new and never before heard approach, talking trash about anyone who is "behind the times" and sticks to the "old" AJAX and .NET nonsense. Following which everyone will find out that there are some things that can be made more "exciting" by giving users "immediate feedback" using JavaIEEEAppleScript 12.6 after which someone will coin a term AJAMAZAX or Web 25.0 to describe the wonderful new idea of putting shit back on the client and the wheel will spin once more, fed by new blood coming to the information industry fresh out of school who have never heard of AJAX, thin-clients, dumb-terminals or server-side transactions ever before. And the only people who will gain are the middle men whose do not give shit about any of this as long as they can make money on change in some form.

Now it's true that noone really used it for a long time, partly because it was only implemented by IE. It's also true that you can simulate asynchronous requests using hidden frames (something my company did back in 99), but that also never really took off (and probably won't now).
The whole point of a web browser is to render static documents. But idiots are desperately atttempting to remake it into an application platform and eventually an OS. With all the baggage, complexity and other nightmares which follow that "logic". Attempts such as ActiveX, AJAX, Java Applets, .NET and other such nonsense will, as they must, cause untold havoc and problems everywhere if deployed widely on the web, or conversly, make no sense whatsoever if deployed on a controlled intranet where a thin client (such as RDP, ICA, VNC or X11) makes way more sense in that context.

But idiots never learn, and thus are doomed to repeating this history over and over and over.

I think it's fair to say that MS were ahead of everyone else.

If leading the lemmings on this merry and utterly futile (although profitable for MS) goose chase is what you mean, then I agree.

Re:One-upsmanship (1)

mycall (802802) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510251)

Lets say Outlook Web Access, released in Exchange 2000, was the first fully AJAX application (it even used WebDAV to access the message store).

Re:One-upsmanship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510020)

Exactly. It's the same as when they went from Word 2 to Word 6 because of the release of WordPerfect 5.

Makes perfect sense (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509916)

I mean see how much better Netscape 8 is compared to Firefox 1.5.

And seriously, it does make sense to align it with their .NET brand since after killing the "cool code names" (Avalon, Indigo) and turning then into indecypherable abbreviations (WPF, WCF, WTF and so on), people got confused, and slap WinFX on top of all that.

Of course .NET also is not a great way to describe it since it's an OS programming framework, not just network related, but what the hell..

This could represent a step forward (-1)

Afroblanco (966776) | more than 7 years ago | (#15509952)

Let's face it, Microsoft's documentation is crap. Their MSDN pages are worst then crap - they're misleading. The searching function will often point you some random topic like Windows Mobile when you're looking for something related to SQL Server. On top of that, the pages themselves often read like VCR instructions. And example code? Fuhgettaboutit. This could be a step in the right direction, though. I've found various forums to be helpful, mostly because of the MVP system. For those who are not MS developers, MVPs are people in the industry who MS hooks up with various perks in exchange for them answering questions on forums. On a lot of MS forums, 80% of the questions are answered by 2% of the user base. These people are usually MVPs. So, yeah, the Wiki could be useful if the MVPs get involved. The wiki could also give people the chance to post example code, which is sorely missing from a lot of the MS documentation. However, it won't be incredibly useful unless they have decent searching. One problem with forums is that the same questions get asked and answered repeatedly. A decent searching feature would lead all askers to the same instance of the question, and the Wiki editing ability would give multiple contributors a chance to distill a really good answer.

Re:This could represent a step forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15509971)

I use MSDN all the time, and I've never had a problem. So long as you know what function you're looking for, it's great. Browsing could use a lot of work. If I could mix the java.sun.com API's ease of browsing, and MSDN's search I'd be in heaven.

Re:This could represent a step forward (1)

Afroblanco (966776) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510026)

So long as you know what function you're looking for, it's great.
 
Bingo.

Re:This could represent a step forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510277)

thats no different to 'man' on linux. if you don't know what to type after the magic word, you're buggared.

Re:This could represent a step forward (2, Informative)

Embedded2004 (789698) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510154)

You like the MSDN's search !??!!?

The search at the MSDN is nearly useless. It needs to be completely redone. Half the time I am looking for something on the MSDN I have to Google it.

It has one of the worst search algorithms I've ever seen. Whoever came up with it should be fired and replaced.

Re:This could represent a step forward (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510548)

The search at the MSDN is nearly useless.

Not just the search, even if you know where on MSDN to find the information you are looking for, it is next to impossible to navigate. Clicking on "Platform SDK" in this list of topics [microsoft.com] takes you to some legal bullshit page in the preface for that manual, with no interesting child nodes and seemingly no way out other than the back button. Until one day you figure out by accident that clicking the "Up One Level" link takes you not back to the main list of topics, but to the table of contents for the Platform SDK manual.

Re:This could represent a step forward (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510201)


  The MSDN documentation is lacking, but it exists. I don't think the developer base ignores it. But there are numerous sites already devoted to dev-level sharing (code exchange, the o'reilly pages, etc).

  MS already has too many channels for information sharing (TV productions, podcasts, engineer/team blogs, forums, help pages, etc).

  It would be nice if they consolidated, and improved the partitions of the information. MS has long been neglecting their help-searching algorithms. If they got their act together with their "improved search" on MSN and a consolidated info database, i'd be able to see reference, examples, RW usage patterns, bugs and workarounds all from a single dashboard.

Re:This could represent a step forward (1)

AstroDrabb (534369) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510208)

The searching function will often point you some random topic like Windows Mobile when you're looking for something related to SQL Server.
Just search MSDN with Google! The first thing that should be done with this MSDN-Wiki thing is someone should make a Javascript created search box on MSDN that uses Google to search MSDN. ;-)

Search is crap but the content is not so bad (2, Informative)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510320)

I agree that the MSDN search function is worthless, because it is way too inaccurate and will swamp you with lots of topics that are not really related.
But once you found the right article, it tends to be OK. Actually Google can help you there, the chance that it points you to a useful MSDN article is better than using the search function on microsoft.com.

Re:This could represent a step forward (2, Informative)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510447)

It's pretty much acknowledged that MSDN's search is awful, hence them changing it. You can test drive the new version [microsoft.com] and feed back comments onto the search blog [msdn.com] (even if they can't get the ratings on blog posts done correctly!).

Not News (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15509984)

WinFX was a technology code word for the new .Net based replacement to the Win32 API. It's ALWAYS been .Net from the get go. Move along ... nothing to see here

Re:Not News (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510397)

It's not a replacement. It's also news that it would be called .NET Framework 3.0, as the framework already contains different components (like the "actual" framework, including the VM and other APIs) and there have also been other plans already presented for what most of us assumed would be .NET 3.0 (LINQ and all, probably tied to VS.NET "Orcas").

.NET downloads misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510005)

Of course, a huge number of those '35 million downloads of the .Net Framework' must be the result of it being offered on Windows Update, which offers the framework as an 'optional' download without adequately explaining what .NET even is. The description for 'Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019)':

Download size: 22.4 MB , 5 minutes
The .NET Framework version 2.0 improves scalability and performance with improved caching, application deployment and updating with ClickOnce, and support for the broadest array of browsers and devices with ASP.NET 2.0 controls and services. After you install this update, you may have to restart your computer.

There's 22.4 MB down the drain for the more gullible folks.

Cool Aid (1, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510016)

I went to the main "WinFX" page and followed the first link [msdn.com] about the rename. Right there in black and white I see all I need to know:

".NET Framework has becomes the most successful developer platform in the world."

I'm going to put down my cup of coffee, pick up the cool-aid and jump right on it! Just another Microsoft developer blogger trying to market for them. And they wonder why only current customers listen.

On a related note, I thought WinFX was originally just the replacement for WinForms, the original .NET objects for laying out application windows. One reason I dropped Windows development is because I got sick of all the ever-changing libraries. And I don't mean gradual improvements. I mean every year they tell you to drop a whole library and switch to something completely different.

Re:Cool Aid (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510147)

And as the diagram [msdn.com] would indicate, they've done nothing but change the name appearance - the featureset remains identical. Hey - that's just like Windows Vista!

Re:Cool Aid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510418)

I thought WinFX was originally just the replacement for WinForms

which was originally just the replacement for AFX, which was originally just the replacement for MFC which was originally just the replacement for Win32 API ...

So at the fundamental level, it is just a glorified printf() statement.

S.O.P. (3, Insightful)

scottsk (781208) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510024)

"purely a branding change" -- Standard operating procedure for MS -- they rename their stuff like clockwork. Trace the history of DDE, OLE, COM, DCOM, ActiveX, .Net etc etc etc (same basic stuff) or their alphabet soup of database access methods which all boil down to that incredible confusing ODBC control panel doodad. (And you have to install the drivers on EVERY DESKTOP, too, or at least you used to...) If MS is not renaming their techologies, they're reorganizing the company.

Re:S.O.P. (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510184)

Thankfully, the odbc control pannel isn't so bad anymore. You do, however, have to configure the odbc stuff for either:
1) Every User on the machine that's going to use it if the database lives in their account
or
2) The machine that the database runs on if you want it to run on the machine and not in the user's account (say a server or an app on a box that several users may use)

Oh, and if your program is in java and you want to connect to an Access database with the JDBC-ODBC bridge, there's another quirk. If you want to change data in the database, you have to use a PreparedStatement instead of just a Statement or it won't work. Nobody really knows why. You just do.

going offtopic (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510297)

There's almost never a good reason to use a plain Statement anyway. PreparedStatements handle proper parameter escaping automatically, and most drivers will cache them for reuse. There's a slight increase in complexity for creation, but there are a ton of libraries to ameliorate that for you.

I don't allow Statements to be used in any code that falls under my responsibility as a matter of course. I don't get why anyone would use them.

Re:going offtopic (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510307)

I agree. It's just one of those little quirks though - X works, Y doesn't.

I think my only complaint about writing prepared statements is that I have to double check to make sure I have the right number of question marks in the statement. This is no problem at all, but it does occasionally mess with you if you're tired =]

Re:S.O.P. (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510291)

Minor correction, DDE and OLE1 were closely related. OLE2 was the first use of what was then called COM. .NET maintains a fairly good compatibility layer to COM, but so it also does to C/Pascal style of DLL (or even static) linking, but fact is of course that the COM part was what the VB fans cared about.

I detest this change (WinFX => .NET 3.0), as the CLR, the actual VM of the environment, hasn't changed. On the other hand, it's still fairly consistent compared to Java version numbers... I guess :-)

Re:S.O.P. (2, Funny)

labreuer (950633) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510371)

If you're a Linux developer you don't change the name, you just create a new distribution!

*ducks*

More confusing (2, Insightful)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510059)

As if people weren't confused enough as to what .NET was anyway... At first Microsoft had named their future version of their OS "Windows.NET", they have .NET My Services web services, there's a .NET conference, a ".NET Enterprise Server", a .net TLD.

Not only this, but .NET was supposed to be a common language runtime environment, and now it's encompassing APIs that are not specific to the environment but specific to a certain version of Windows.

Now they're bringing this same confusion to WinFX? WinFX used to be the three pillars to the new Windows API to be included in Vista, encompassing Avalon (presentation layer), Indigo (communications layer), and WinFS (metadata database for the filesystem). Then some of these pillars were dropped, and now apparently according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] there are four pillars. I'm not sure if these will still be available [about.com] for Windows XP, and where Windows 2000 stands. Not only that, but will Mono have to re-implement major parts of Windows just to be .NET 3.0 compliant?

Anyway, all this makes me wonder, what is MS trying to accomplish with this moving-target definition of WinFX and .NET? They should just hold all announcements until they ship a product, IMHO.

Re:More confusing (1)

AstroDrabb (534369) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510271)

what is MS trying to accomplish with this moving-target definition of WinFX and .NET? They should just hold all announcements until they ship a product, IMHO.

MS is the spoiled child that always needs all the attention. MS will always tell customers that the next "great" version is coming. However, once that time comes, the date always slips. When was the last time MS released one of its core products on time with all promised features? MS only makes these "announcements" because they want to keep their customers eyes on them instead of having them possibly look to Linux or Mac or some other company.

I have done C#/.Net under MS for a while now. I recently started using Mono/C#/Gtk# under Linux and find it very solid for C#, ASP.NET v1.1 work. Mono's .Net 2.0 support is almost complete. Monodevelop has a new Gui builder named Stetic that is usable. Stetic is still very new and certaily needs more work. However I was able to use it to do my Gui building without issues. As you build the Gui, you just click on a widget/control and click the "Bind to field" button to have Stetic create the widget/gui instances for you. Then you can get to doing all your coding like you would with Visual Studio. Pretty nice so far and with more people from the community getting involved, Monodevelop/Stetic will be a great C#, VB.Net, and ASP.Net development IDE.

Name Changes (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510090)

Last minute name changes seem to be getting popular at Microsoft.
I wonder if it has anything to do with domain name scalpers &or the typo/bogus/phishing-domain stuff they've got going on.

it's a marketing move (1)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510104)

what's up with all these slashdot troll about .Net 3.0? it's just a rename you troll!

Frist s7op (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510124)

paper towels, percent of the *BSD as llitle overhead the deal with you

My God... They did it!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510159)

Microsoft has really innovated! They've hijacked their own .NET platform!!

WinFX IS NOT RELAITED TO .NET. To start calling it .NET will confuse clueless managers and that would be most of them. The mono project will be telling people that they are the Linux .NET platform but clueless managers won't understand why the Linux .NET implementation isn't compatible with the Microsoft .NET 3.0 implementation.

Good innovation Microsoft. Unless one looks one would never see that this is really an anticompetitive move! bravo for Microsoft innovation!!!

Re:My God... They did it!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510242)

That shouldn't be a problem, only a complete bonehead would be using .NET or Mono for anything serious anyway.

If it's a matter of download numbers... (1)

tchernobog (752560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510303)

...I wonder why they hadn't renamed it to "nude pics", or even "fr33 p0rn 4U". Downloads would have reached a bizzillion in far less than week.

On a more serious note, I wonder if this is just the old renowned way to force something down users' throat: just one more occasion to make users agree on a if-we-blow-your-computer-you-can't-sue-us, will-send-your-private-infos-to-third-parties, your-old-programs-won't-work-after-this EULA.

Since a lot of spam I received through the ages tries to have you to download some (fake) patch to protect you to some non-existant virus, exploiting your trust on a well-known trademark, it could be that this time it is the vendor that is (again) trying to make you "buy" something you don't need.

Nothing new in this, I know. Just pointing it out.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...