|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Microsoft may back off of .NET languages
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/43073/20100812/microsoft.htm
:-) Here comes Tom and Paul to spin for their master in 5...4...3...2...1...Kevin Provance formulated on Friday :
> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/43073/20100812/microsoft.htm This news group is for vb6 and earlier. .NET is off topic here.> > :-) > > Here comes Tom and Paul to spin for their master in 5...4...3...2...1... Thanks! -- Tom Shelton On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:10:21 -0400, "Kevin Provance" <k@p.c> wrote: ¤ http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/43073/20100812/microsoft.htm¤ ¤ :-) ¤ ¤ Here comes Tom and Paul to spin for their master in 5...4...3...2...1... Yeah, not sure that Microsoft is going to invest much in developing and supporting languages based upon the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime). IronRuby is open source and that may be the extent of it. The DLR is not on my radar. But since you want to talk about .NET you may want to check out the Visual Studio LightSwitch Beta once it's released. Building a business app quickly doesn't require much of a learning curve so it's probably right up your alley. You can always learn more about Visual Basic .NET later and customize your app by writing some actual code. ;-) http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/lightswitch Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) Paul Clement wrote:
> Kevin Provance wrote: "Dynamic Language Runtime" Oh boy! Not another bulky framework to have >> >> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/43073/20100812/microsoft.htm >> >> <snipped> > > Yeah, not sure that Microsoft is going to invest much in developing and > supporting languages based upon the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime). IronRuby is > open source and that may be the extent of it. The DLR is not on my radar. > > <snipped> installed just to run an app. The future looks like applications running as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or contaminated? From your message I get the idea that you assumes we are still living in the
IBM 5150 PC time. Since 12 august 1981 there have been many new platforms which are all controlled by programs. We cannot make programs anymore which put every character on a matrix from 80 by 25 and are then happy. The truth is more and more that most control is done by the OS, we can only tailor that. How much we dislike that. Cor Show quoteHide quote "Nando" <hight***@att.net.no.to.sp.am> wrote in message news:ug$63O2OLHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Paul Clement wrote: >> Kevin Provance wrote: >>> >>> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/43073/20100812/microsoft.htm >>> >>> <snipped> >> >> Yeah, not sure that Microsoft is going to invest much in developing and >> supporting languages based upon the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime). >> IronRuby is >> open source and that may be the extent of it. The DLR is not on my radar. >> >> <snipped> > > "Dynamic Language Runtime" Oh boy! Not another bulky framework to have > installed just to run an app. The future looks like applications running > as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual programs > running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or contaminated? > Cor wrote:
> From your message I get the idea that you assumes we are still living Yes, today's computers run faster, but that is not a reason to have > in the IBM 5150 PC time. everything scripted. > Since 12 august 1981 there have been many new platforms which are all The underlying computer architecture has not really changed. It is an > controlled by programs. > > We cannot make programs anymore which put every character on a matrix > from 80 by 25 and are then happy. > > The truth is more and more that most control is done by the OS, we can > only tailor that. How much we dislike that. > > Cor illusion from software (which is what we really interact with). Datapath and the Harvard architecture are still the same, with various improvements like higher clock speeds, faster buses, more and faster memory, caches, parallelism,... Software, however changes at the speed of light, and so do the "development platforms." These new platforms walk away from the model of programs running and interacting with the OS, but rather adopt the model of programs scripted to run on top of multiple levels of scripting. What I wanted to hear was a better defense of the "new platforms" on better grounds, also expecting honest (not evangelist's) reasons. Not to be surprised that large and infinitely rich companies can "bend" or "break" the rules of software architectural principles for the sake of money. Show quoteHide quote > Nando wrote: >> Paul Clement wrote: >>> Kevin Provance wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/43073/20100812/microsoft.htm >>>> >>>> <snipped> >>> >>> Yeah, not sure that Microsoft is going to invest much in developing and >>> supporting languages based upon the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime). >>> IronRuby is >>> open source and that may be the extent of it. The DLR is not on my >>> radar. >>> >>> <snipped> >> >> "Dynamic Language Runtime" Oh boy! Not another bulky framework to have >> installed just to run an app. The future looks like applications >> running as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of >> actual programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept >> invalid or contaminated? | The future looks like applications running It seems unstoppable, doesn't it? Lately there's| as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual | programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or | contaminated? Google and Verizon trying to nudge us all toward a system better suited for selling services. Google has transformed into a sales company. Apple is trying to sell everything that happens on their hardware. Microsoft is trying to play catch-up, restricting Windows and pointing developers at .Net web apps running on Azure -- where MS can get paid by everyone involved while they run nothing more than glorified web hosting. So many big companies salivating over the possibilities. And they all want to cash in by becoming some sort if Internet middleman, rather than improving their respective products. Unfortunately, the ability to control what happens on the PC -- and install good, cheap software locally -- is standing in the way of their plans. What surprises me is how many people (like our local DotNettiac salesmen in general, and Cor's last post in particular) see themselves in an entirely passive role. In some ways the phone market is starting to remind me of the PC/shareware heyday of circa 2000. Back then people were having fun exploring PCs and the Web. They were installing shareware for fun and adventure. The PC was a very malleable thing. A few shareware companies came out of that as major software companies, but most made little money. Now the smartphone is the new PC. People are buying smartphones and installing as many "apps" as they can fit. But it doesn't look like a promising situation for developers to get involved in. First, it's just plain too ludicrous squeezing so much onto a phone. And like the PC craze, it's mostly just for fun. Most of the developers will never make any notable profit. In a couple of years the novelty will wear off. People will realize that it really doesn't make sense to watch movies on a 2" screen, and that there are better, much cheaper flashlights than iPhones with a flashlight app. (Which is not even getting into the silliness like making one's iPhone screen look like a glass of beer or a fogged-up shower door.) I did come across a voice of reason, recently, though: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367202,00.asp John Dvorak, as usual a voice in the wilderness, speaking up for common sense amidst the din of fashion and commerce. :)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message Wow. Well said.news:i468sb$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org... : : It seems unstoppable, doesn't it? Lately there's : Google and Verizon trying to nudge us all toward : a system better suited for selling services. Google : has transformed into a sales company. Apple is trying : to sell everything that happens on their hardware. : Microsoft is trying to play catch-up, restricting : Windows and pointing developers at .Net web apps : running on Azure -- where MS can get paid by everyone : involved while they run nothing more than glorified : web hosting. : : So many big companies salivating over the possibilities. : And they all want to cash in by becoming some sort : if Internet middleman, rather than improving their : respective products. Unfortunately, the ability to control : what happens on the PC -- and install good, cheap software : locally -- is standing in the way of their plans. : : What surprises me is how many people (like our local : DotNettiac salesmen in general, and Cor's last post in : particular) see themselves in an entirely passive role. : : In some ways the phone market is starting to remind : me of the PC/shareware heyday of circa 2000. Back then : people were having fun exploring PCs and the Web. They : were installing shareware for fun and adventure. The PC : was a very malleable thing. A few shareware companies : came out of that as major software companies, but most : made little money. Now the smartphone is the new PC. : People are buying smartphones and installing as many : "apps" as they can fit. But it doesn't look like a promising : situation for developers to get involved in. First, it's just : plain too ludicrous squeezing so much onto a phone. And : like the PC craze, it's mostly just for fun. Most of the : developers will never make any notable profit. In a couple : of years the novelty will wear off. People will realize that : it really doesn't make sense to watch movies on a 2" screen, : and that there are better, much cheaper flashlights than : iPhones with a flashlight app. (Which is not even getting : into the silliness like making one's iPhone screen look like : a glass of beer or a fogged-up shower door.) : : I did come across a voice of reason, recently, though: : : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367202,00.asp : : John Dvorak, as usual a voice in the wilderness, speaking : up for common sense amidst the din of fashion and : commerce. :)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> skrev i meddelandet The ultimate goal is a computer without an OS, just a webbrowser. So, then news:i468sb$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org... > > | The future looks like applications running > | as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual > | programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or > | contaminated? > > It seems unstoppable, doesn't it? Lately there's > Google and Verizon trying to nudge us all toward > a system better suited for selling services. Google > has transformed into a sales company. Apple is trying > to sell everything that happens on their hardware. > Microsoft is trying to play catch-up, restricting > Windows and pointing developers at .Net web apps > running on Azure -- where MS can get paid by everyone > involved while they run nothing more than glorified > web hosting. > > So many big companies salivating over the possibilities. > And they all want to cash in by becoming some sort > if Internet middleman, rather than improving their > respective products. Unfortunately, the ability to control > what happens on the PC -- and install good, cheap software > locally -- is standing in the way of their plans. > > What surprises me is how many people (like our local > DotNettiac salesmen in general, and Cor's last post in > particular) see themselves in an entirely passive role. > > In some ways the phone market is starting to remind > me of the PC/shareware heyday of circa 2000. Back then > people were having fun exploring PCs and the Web. They > were installing shareware for fun and adventure. The PC > was a very malleable thing. A few shareware companies > came out of that as major software companies, but most > made little money. Now the smartphone is the new PC. > People are buying smartphones and installing as many > "apps" as they can fit. But it doesn't look like a promising > situation for developers to get involved in. First, it's just > plain too ludicrous squeezing so much onto a phone. And > like the PC craze, it's mostly just for fun. Most of the > developers will never make any notable profit. In a couple > of years the novelty will wear off. People will realize that > it really doesn't make sense to watch movies on a 2" screen, > and that there are better, much cheaper flashlights than > iPhones with a flashlight app. (Which is not even getting > into the silliness like making one's iPhone screen look like > a glass of beer or a fogged-up shower door.) > > I did come across a voice of reason, recently, though: > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367202,00.asp > > John Dvorak, as usual a voice in the wilderness, speaking > up for common sense amidst the din of fashion and > commerce. :) > > we're back to Cor's days of a dumb terminal. That is called progress... /Henning Henning,
The first computers I was working with did not even have something what could be called an OS. But I've seen that is also for many persons in this newsgroup. For me it were mainframes, but the first computer desktops like Commodore 64 did as far as I know also not really have something what could be named an OS. In fact where even the first DOS systems nothing more than a way to handle the devices. Cor Show quoteHide quote "Henning" <computer_h***@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:i46nsj$7vb$1@news.eternal-september.org... > > "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> skrev i meddelandet > news:i468sb$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> >> | The future looks like applications running >> | as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual >> | programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or >> | contaminated? >> >> It seems unstoppable, doesn't it? Lately there's >> Google and Verizon trying to nudge us all toward >> a system better suited for selling services. Google >> has transformed into a sales company. Apple is trying >> to sell everything that happens on their hardware. >> Microsoft is trying to play catch-up, restricting >> Windows and pointing developers at .Net web apps >> running on Azure -- where MS can get paid by everyone >> involved while they run nothing more than glorified >> web hosting. >> >> So many big companies salivating over the possibilities. >> And they all want to cash in by becoming some sort >> if Internet middleman, rather than improving their >> respective products. Unfortunately, the ability to control >> what happens on the PC -- and install good, cheap software >> locally -- is standing in the way of their plans. >> >> What surprises me is how many people (like our local >> DotNettiac salesmen in general, and Cor's last post in >> particular) see themselves in an entirely passive role. >> >> In some ways the phone market is starting to remind >> me of the PC/shareware heyday of circa 2000. Back then >> people were having fun exploring PCs and the Web. They >> were installing shareware for fun and adventure. The PC >> was a very malleable thing. A few shareware companies >> came out of that as major software companies, but most >> made little money. Now the smartphone is the new PC. >> People are buying smartphones and installing as many >> "apps" as they can fit. But it doesn't look like a promising >> situation for developers to get involved in. First, it's just >> plain too ludicrous squeezing so much onto a phone. And >> like the PC craze, it's mostly just for fun. Most of the >> developers will never make any notable profit. In a couple >> of years the novelty will wear off. People will realize that >> it really doesn't make sense to watch movies on a 2" screen, >> and that there are better, much cheaper flashlights than >> iPhones with a flashlight app. (Which is not even getting >> into the silliness like making one's iPhone screen look like >> a glass of beer or a fogged-up shower door.) >> >> I did come across a voice of reason, recently, though: >> >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367202,00.asp >> >> John Dvorak, as usual a voice in the wilderness, speaking >> up for common sense amidst the din of fashion and >> commerce. :) >> >> > > The ultimate goal is a computer without an OS, just a webbrowser. So, then > we're back to Cor's days of a dumb terminal. That is called progress... > > /Henning > > > I have been in the industrial controller area of computing since 1979. So
the first controllers I built using the CDP1802 was programmed with a calculator style "terminal" entering the hex op codes directly. I still remember most of those. F8 00 B7 = load immediate &H00 into high nibble of register 7... What I was refering to was the first multiuser mainframes with dumb user terminals. As I see it the new cloud computing is the same thing, all apps run over the internet via webbrowsers. /Henning Show quoteHide quote "Cor" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> skrev i meddelandet news:eamIbfFPLHA.5076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Henning, > > The first computers I was working with did not even have something what > could be called an OS. But I've seen that is also for many persons in this > newsgroup. For me it were mainframes, but the first computer desktops > like Commodore 64 did as far as I know also not really have something what > could be named an OS. > > In fact where even the first DOS systems nothing more than a way to handle > the devices. > > Cor > > "Henning" <computer_h***@coldmail.com> wrote in message > news:i46nsj$7vb$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> skrev i meddelandet >> news:i468sb$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> | The future looks like applications running >>> | as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual >>> | programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or >>> | contaminated? >>> >>> It seems unstoppable, doesn't it? Lately there's >>> Google and Verizon trying to nudge us all toward >>> a system better suited for selling services. Google >>> has transformed into a sales company. Apple is trying >>> to sell everything that happens on their hardware. >>> Microsoft is trying to play catch-up, restricting >>> Windows and pointing developers at .Net web apps >>> running on Azure -- where MS can get paid by everyone >>> involved while they run nothing more than glorified >>> web hosting. >>> >>> So many big companies salivating over the possibilities. >>> And they all want to cash in by becoming some sort >>> if Internet middleman, rather than improving their >>> respective products. Unfortunately, the ability to control >>> what happens on the PC -- and install good, cheap software >>> locally -- is standing in the way of their plans. >>> >>> What surprises me is how many people (like our local >>> DotNettiac salesmen in general, and Cor's last post in >>> particular) see themselves in an entirely passive role. >>> >>> In some ways the phone market is starting to remind >>> me of the PC/shareware heyday of circa 2000. Back then >>> people were having fun exploring PCs and the Web. They >>> were installing shareware for fun and adventure. The PC >>> was a very malleable thing. A few shareware companies >>> came out of that as major software companies, but most >>> made little money. Now the smartphone is the new PC. >>> People are buying smartphones and installing as many >>> "apps" as they can fit. But it doesn't look like a promising >>> situation for developers to get involved in. First, it's just >>> plain too ludicrous squeezing so much onto a phone. And >>> like the PC craze, it's mostly just for fun. Most of the >>> developers will never make any notable profit. In a couple >>> of years the novelty will wear off. People will realize that >>> it really doesn't make sense to watch movies on a 2" screen, >>> and that there are better, much cheaper flashlights than >>> iPhones with a flashlight app. (Which is not even getting >>> into the silliness like making one's iPhone screen look like >>> a glass of beer or a fogged-up shower door.) >>> >>> I did come across a voice of reason, recently, though: >>> >>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367202,00.asp >>> >>> John Dvorak, as usual a voice in the wilderness, speaking >>> up for common sense amidst the din of fashion and >>> commerce. :) >>> >>> >> >> The ultimate goal is a computer without an OS, just a webbrowser. So, >> then we're back to Cor's days of a dumb terminal. That is called >> progress... >> >> /Henning >> >> >> "Cor" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message Well that's pretty much a definition of an operating system, something that news:eamIbfFPLHA.5076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > but the first computer desktops like Commodore 64 > did as far as I know also not really have something > what could be named an OS. In fact where even the > first DOS systems nothing more than a way to handle > the devices. handles the hardware devices and the user input. The C64 very definitely DID have an operating system, and so did the Oric and the Amiga and the Spectrum and all of the other early home computers I have used. And all those machines also provided facilities to enable the user or other third parties to create and run code (most of which in those days had all its code and all its data actually on the machine itself). What Henning was referring to, as you clearly already know but are refusing to admit, is the "dumbing down" of modern desktop computers to the point that they are simply glorified web browsers with the capacity to run /only/ applications that are delivered and run over the web in a browser. That is what Micro$oft are fervently hoping for and aiming for, in their pursuit of regular and predictable income either directly or indirectly from millions of dumb users sitting at millions of dumb terminals. Mike That is not what only Microsoft is hoping for. The Windows product which
Microsoft has put on the market, ended (partially) a very profitable era of service processing. Since then companies try to get that back, if it is named Cloud, ASP (not the page), SOAP, or whatever short name for it, which means in fact, "Connect to my computer system and I start my billing system for you". There will always people who believe it, and at the end of some years, as those are fired, there will always be persons who will start at a certain time buying solutions, which can be done in house. In my idea is one of the big disadvantages of Cloud (or whatever name it has) beside the hard to manage cost, that you have to trust the companies, which do it, have completely secured your information for others. In short past there have been many deceptions about that, even if it was in the most secure environments. I don't have the idea that Microsoft will embrace completely the "Internet is the Computer" idea like it was for about 15 years ago done by Oracle. It was a deception. It would be like we say in Holland "Dispose the child with the dirty wash water" (I don't know the equivalent English phrase). But it can be very profitable and I've never seen that Microsoft did not at least try it. Be aware that for companies who cannot handle their own information, Cloud computing (or whatever name) is a very good alternative as it is about keeping the data safe at for instance fire or whatever disaster. Jmo Cor Show quoteHide quote "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message news:i48fud$69g$1@speranza.aioe.org... > "Cor" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > news:eamIbfFPLHA.5076@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >> but the first computer desktops like Commodore 64 >> did as far as I know also not really have something >> what could be named an OS. In fact where even the >> first DOS systems nothing more than a way to handle >> the devices. > > Well that's pretty much a definition of an operating system, something > that handles the hardware devices and the user input. The C64 very > definitely DID have an operating system, and so did the Oric and the Amiga > and the Spectrum and all of the other early home computers I have used. > And all those machines also provided facilities to enable the user or > other third parties to create and run code (most of which in those days > had all its code and all its data actually on the machine itself). What > Henning was referring to, as you clearly already know but are refusing to > admit, is the "dumbing down" of modern desktop computers to the point that > they are simply glorified web browsers with the capacity to run /only/ > applications that are delivered and run over the web in a browser. That is > what Micro$oft are fervently hoping for and aiming for, in their pursuit > of regular and predictable income either directly or indirectly from > millions of dumb users sitting at millions of dumb terminals. > > Mike > > > > | I don't have the idea that Microsoft will embrace completely the "Internet Steve Ballmer has actually articulated that| is the Computer" idea like it was for about 15 years ago done by Oracle. It | was a deception. It would be like we say in Holland "Dispose the child with | the dirty wash water" (I don't know the equivalent English phrase). | position. He calls it "software and services", as opposed to SaaS. The idea is that MS will have online services but the PC will be as central as possible in using those services. And, of course, the services will work best (in some cases only) on recent, supported versions of Windows. That's always been the Microsoft strategy -- with IE, Office, ActiveX...now with .Net, Silverlight and web services. They're all cross-platform, except that they don't run on anything except the most recent versions of Windows. (Tom Shelton may show up to protest that Mono lives....but Mono always lives one version behind, with an uncertain legal status. Mono lives just barely enough to give Microsoft some shoddy evidence for their claim of cross-platform.) Since Windows makes so much money, there's little chance they'll "throw out the baby", as you put it. They'll keep trying to find ways to use web services as a platform to pull people back to Windows. Ideally (in their eyes) they'll make exclusive deals with people like movie companies, to transmit movies via Silverlight, and leave out some functionality unless customers are running the latest version of Windows. In other words, expand into web serviecs, not move to web services. The big problem with that, even for people who ride the Microsoft wagon, is that the MS eyes are on profits and not on product. Remember the SPOT watch? Bill Gates is clearly very impressed with his own brilliance. He doesn't hesitate to walk onto the world stage and offer solutions for all the world's ills. Yet it was him who thought people would end up using Passport to make appointments with their dentists using a SPOT watch. That wasn't a brilliant idea. It was a daffy idea. But it seemed like a great insight to him because it implied the possibility of great profits. ...Money is intelligence. :) Mayayana wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Since Windows makes so much money, there's little And you forgot world-domination as a whole ;) Don't forget Game consoles > chance they'll "throw out the baby", as you [Cor] put it. > They'll keep trying to find ways to use web services > as a platform to pull people back to Windows. Ideally > (in their eyes) they'll make exclusive deals with people > like movie companies, to transmit movies via Silverlight, > and leave out some functionality unless customers are > running the latest version of Windows. In other words, > expand into web serviecs, not move to web services. > > The big problem with that, even for people who ride > the Microsoft wagon, is that the MS eyes are on profits > and not on product. Remember the SPOT watch? Bill > Gates is clearly very impressed with his own brilliance. > He doesn't hesitate to walk onto the world stage and > offer solutions for all the world's ills. Yet it was him who > thought people would end up using Passport to make > appointments with their dentists using a SPOT watch. That > wasn't a brilliant idea. It was a daffy idea. But it seemed > like a great insight to him because it implied the possibility > of great profits. ...Money is intelligence. :) (Xbox), MP3/Music players (Zune), Browsers (IE), Windows Live, cell phones (Windows phone), search engines (Bing), Web cameras, keyboards, mice, OS (Windows), software development (.NET). Internet routers and Microsoft chain of restaurants are next :) "Cor" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message Hang on a minute, Cor. You seem to be agreeing now with what myself and news:O$DLk8GPLHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > That is not what only Microsoft is hoping for. The > Windows product which Microsoft has put on the market, > ended (partially) a very profitable era of service processing. > Since then companies try to get that back, if it is named > Cloud, ASP (not the page), SOAP, or whatever short > name for it, which means in fact, "Connect to my computer > system and I start my billing system for you". others have said for a long time about Micro$oft's intentions. Have you reversed your views on this, or have I misread your previous views? > I don't have the idea that Microsoft will embrace completely the .. . . but now you seem to be, at least partially, backtracking on your newly > "Internet is the Computer" . . . It would be like we say in Holland > "Dispose the child with the dirty wash water" (I don't know the > equivalent English phrase). espoused view? I'm not sure now where you stand on this one. Micro$oft have seen how hard it is becoming to continually persuade people to buy a new version of their operating system every few years, at least in the numbers they are hoping for, so much so that they are forced to deliberately "damage" the old one in order to persuade people to "buy something better". They can see the profitability of this coming to an end as smaller more portable devices, many with operating systems made by other companies, are becoming more and more common with "the masses" and such devices are beginning to replace the desktop and even the laptop machines that have for years been Micro$oft's bread and butter. There is a lot of money to be made in persuading billions of people to part with very small amounts of money on a regular basis, something which is far easier than persuading people to part with relatively large sums much more infrequently. This frightens Micro$oft, because they are currently stuck with the "get a large sum every few years" corporate ethos that is becoming far harder to achieve than it once was, and they want to carve as large a slice of the "new cake" for themselves before the other companies gobble it all up. The problem for Micro$oft (which is in fact a benefit for the consumer) is that Micro$oft is a massive corporate behemoth and it is finding it difficult to change course quickly enough, which might just be their downfall (at least I hope it is!). > It would be like we say in Holland "Dispose the child That would be "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" :-)> with the dirty wash water" (I don't know the equivalent > English phrase). Mike I've never told that Microsoft first goal is not money making. It is an
American firm, how can they have another goal. I disagree with you if you tell that Open Source is a better way to go to get things done. Microsoft started for instance with IE as a free complete Webbrowser, that they did not do for charity but their expectations that Internet would be the way to go and they could gain money with that. I also assume that Microsoft will once have a downfall, I see however no need that it is soon. The goals of for instance Bill Gates are a lot better than other money makers in the world. Cor Show quoteHide quote "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message news:i48pf5$i3m$1@speranza.aioe.org... > "Cor" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > news:O$DLk8GPLHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> That is not what only Microsoft is hoping for. The >> Windows product which Microsoft has put on the market, >> ended (partially) a very profitable era of service processing. >> Since then companies try to get that back, if it is named >> Cloud, ASP (not the page), SOAP, or whatever short >> name for it, which means in fact, "Connect to my computer >> system and I start my billing system for you". > > Hang on a minute, Cor. You seem to be agreeing now with what myself and > others have said for a long time about Micro$oft's intentions. Have you > reversed your views on this, or have I misread your previous views? > >> I don't have the idea that Microsoft will embrace completely the >> "Internet is the Computer" . . . It would be like we say in Holland >> "Dispose the child with the dirty wash water" (I don't know the >> equivalent English phrase). > > . . . but now you seem to be, at least partially, backtracking on your > newly espoused view? I'm not sure now where you stand on this one. > Micro$oft have seen how hard it is becoming to continually persuade people > to buy a new version of their operating system every few years, at least > in the numbers they are hoping for, so much so that they are forced to > deliberately "damage" the old one in order to persuade people to "buy > something better". They can see the profitability of this coming to an end > as smaller more portable devices, many with operating systems made by > other companies, are becoming more and more common with "the masses" and > such devices are beginning to replace the desktop and even the laptop > machines that have for years been Micro$oft's bread and butter. > > There is a lot of money to be made in persuading billions of people to > part with very small amounts of money on a regular basis, something which > is far easier than persuading people to part with relatively large sums > much more infrequently. This frightens Micro$oft, because they are > currently stuck with the "get a large sum every few years" corporate ethos > that is becoming far harder to achieve than it once was, and they want to > carve as large a slice of the "new cake" for themselves before the other > companies gobble it all up. The problem for Micro$oft (which is in fact a > benefit for the consumer) is that Micro$oft is a massive corporate > behemoth and it is finding it difficult to change course quickly enough, > which might just be their downfall (at least I hope it is!). > >> It would be like we say in Holland "Dispose the child >> with the dirty wash water" (I don't know the equivalent >> English phrase). > > That would be "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" :-) > > Mike > > > > | I've never told that Microsoft first goal is not money making. It is an It sounds like you don't think very much of Americans.| American firm, how can they have another goal. | There are actually lots of us who are happy to just make an honest living doing something that's useful to others. The greedy ones get richer, so you hear about them more. Mayayana,
In context what you wrote it you're wrong. I think exactly in the way like you wrote about Americans I agree that there was no need to add the word "American" in my last message. The same is for almost all companies in the world, and for sure Dutch ones. However now you write this. This newsgroup has a majority which agrees with Kevin (I know they are also from Germany and England). I don't want to see Americans like that, in Amsterdam (the city I was born and grew up) was 10% of the population slaughtered in the last war because of his kind of ideas. Beside Paul and Tom I see never American hard members of this community take actions against him. I know that there are more persons who have written things about the behaviour of Kevin then alone Paul, Tom and me, so excuses too those I've not called by name. But it were not the hard members of this group like Carl, Larry and you. Sometimes I think then, is my positive idea about Americans wrong. Cor Show quoteHide quote "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:i499o3$u5f$1@news.eternal-september.org... > > | I've never told that Microsoft first goal is not money making. It is an > | American firm, how can they have another goal. > | > > It sounds like you don't think very much of Americans. > There are actually lots of us who are happy to just make > an honest living doing something that's useful to others. > The greedy ones get richer, so you hear about them more. > > > > Cor wrote:
> I've never told that Microsoft first goal is not money making. It is an AFAIK, IE was designed as part of Windows (APIs favor IE over 3rd party > American firm, how can they have another goal. > > I disagree with you if you [Mike W.] tell that Open Source is a better way to go > to get things done. > > Microsoft started for instance with IE as a free complete Webbrowser, > that they did not do for charity but their expectations that Internet > would be the way to go and they could gain money with that. Web browsers). IE was MS's sniper sent to win the browsers' war of the 90's by distributing it free with the massively adopted OS, and sent to destroy the giant Netscape and its Netscape Navigator browser. But it wasn't just IE alone but with a combination of *moves* that destroyed Netscape and ended with Microsoft in Federal Court with the US DoJ breathing on their neck (and Bill's) "looking to break" MS. Netscape was annihilated but MS lost the antitrust case with the US DoJ (BTW does anybody know if MS also had to pay money? I can't remember all the details, it was a very hot and long running case to follow). Also IE was MS's opportunity to conquer the new Web platform and create standards for the Web themselves, disregarding 3WC Web standards. The IE development team is re-assembled every two years to work on IE new version releases, so not ongoing work like other browsers. Another interesting fact is that with a fully patched machined and the latest version of the IE browser, a Web page can install *malicious software* on the computer by *just* landing on a page (no clicking), even if the user is running as a *limited user*. I did not want to believe this until I saw it with my own eyes. That is some serious software engineering! Show quoteHide quote > I also assume that Microsoft will once have a downfall, I see however no > need that it is soon. The goals of for instance Bill Gates are a lot > better than other money makers in the world. > > Cor Mike Williams wrote:
> There is a lot of money to be made in persuading billions of people to I agree.> part with very small amounts of money on a regular basis, something > which is far easier than persuading people to part with relatively large > sums much more infrequently. This frightens Micro$oft, because they are > currently stuck with the "get a large sum every few years" corporate > ethos that is becoming far harder to achieve than it once was, and they > want to carve as large a slice of the "new cake" for themselves before > the other companies gobble it all up. > The problem for Micro$oft (which That's the problem when a companies (or an individuals) have too much > is in fact a benefit for the consumer) is that Micro$oft is a massive > corporate behemoth and it is finding it difficult to change course > quickly enough, which might just be their downfall (at least I hope it > is!). money, they are immune to everything, and even to principles of markets and product quality and competition. I'd love to see companies with product that have gained their place in the market. Look the XBox for instance, the product would have died (years loosing millions, yet succeeded with an unlimited supply of capital from mother MS). Nothing can fight against gravity when gravity is too much, even the ultra fast light bends when passing near a black hole. Show quoteHide quote >> It would be like we say in Holland "Dispose the child >> with the dirty wash water" (I don't know the equivalent >> English phrase). > > That would be "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" :-) > > Mike On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:43:48 +0200, "Cor" <Notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> That would be "throw the baby out with the bath water."wrote: > It would be like we say in Holland "Dispose the child with >the dirty wash water" (I don't know the equivalent English phrase). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bath_water Tony (Canadian) -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/ Mayayana wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > | The future looks like applications running Also to mention that it is much *easier* to keep creating platforms than > | as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual > | programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or > | contaminated? > > It seems unstoppable, doesn't it? Lately there's > Google and Verizon trying to nudge us all toward > a system better suited for selling services. Google > has transformed into a sales company. Apple is trying > to sell everything that happens on their hardware. > Microsoft is trying to play catch-up, restricting > Windows and pointing developers at .Net web apps > running on Azure -- where MS can get paid by everyone > involved while they run nothing more than glorified > web hosting. actually strengthen and evolving the OS. > <snipped> Now the smartphone is the new PC. Exactly! It will be interesting to "see" ahead after the bubble bursts.> People are buying smartphones and installing as many > "apps" as they can fit. But it doesn't look like a promising > situation for developers to get involved in. First, it's just > plain too ludicrous squeezing so much onto a phone. And > like the PC craze, it's mostly just for fun. Most of the > developers will never make any notable profit. In a couple > of years the novelty will wear off. People will realize that > it really doesn't make sense to watch movies on a 2" screen, > and that there are better, much cheaper flashlights than I believe both markets will always exist. The desktop computing and > iPhones with a flashlight app. (Which is not even getting > into the silliness like making one's iPhone screen look like > a glass of beer or a fogged-up shower door.) cloud computing. The first one (desktop computing) oriented to the power user: the computer programmer or developer, the engineer using Auto-CAD, the graphic designer at the art department of a publishing company, the scientist at the lab, etc. The second one (cloud computing) is the current bubble, with a future of mere entertainment, oriented for the casual use or the common folk. On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:49:29 -0400, Nando <hight***@att.net.no.to.sp.am> wrote:
¤ >> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/43073/20100812/microsoft.htm ¤ >> ¤ >> <snipped> ¤ > ¤ > Yeah, not sure that Microsoft is going to invest much in developing and ¤ > supporting languages based upon the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime). IronRuby is ¤ > open source and that may be the extent of it. The DLR is not on my radar. ¤ > ¤ > <snipped> ¤ ¤ "Dynamic Language Runtime" Oh boy! Not another bulky framework to have ¤ installed just to run an app. The future looks like applications running ¤ as scripts on top of platforms on top of the OS instead of actual ¤ programs running on top of OS. Is the fundamental concept invalid or ¤ contaminated? Can't say since I haven't used it and IMO it doesn't seem to be all that popular. It's optional but like any other new feature would require an additional API for the system. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) "DotNut" <u***@server.com> wrote in message It's a separate product.news:i48tvl$o8c$1@speranza.aioe.org... > Delphi recently removed support for compiling to .NET from their IDE. :D Show quoteHide quote > On Aug 15, 8:35 am, "DotNut" <u***@server.com> wrote: Yep. It's now a separate product - Delphi Prism. It integrates into> Delphi recently removed support for compiling to .NET from their IDE. :D the Visual Stuido 2010 IDE. MS just sponsered a launch event at my local user group. Looks pretty cool. 
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
