Re: Is that a joke ?


"Wraith Daquell" <WDaquell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1119809870.546000.231020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> --> 5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM
> technology?
>
> First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
> they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
> didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it.

This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because
Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development
languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do
anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept the
classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying any
attention to what they wanted or needed.

> There are many things
> that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
> framework.

This is just plainly not true. Name an application or data manipultaion
that cannot be done outside a VM.

>And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
> so VMs work just fine.
>
> --> 6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from
> hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in
> unmanaged code. Safe from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make
> good programmers or safe applications. I still wonder what "safe"
> means.
>
> "safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
> be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
> more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
> garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
> about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
> worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
> philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
> them?

""Safe" was a keyword used to generate interest in a product that was not
needed (.Net).

The imaginary "DLL Hell" was also listed as a reason for .Net. This too was
a lie. All that you had to do to avoid the "DLL Hell" boogey man was to
place your DLLs in the same directory as your executable! What a farce!

> --> 7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become
> obsolete
> because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have
> something
> that hides Win32/GDI calls?
>
> Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty
> years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am
> willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past
> innovation. Besides, the WF and Avalon ideas sure help out RAD
> developers.

Wrong again.... Microsoft, as a corporation, is very business savy. There
are several real reasons for changing the user interface - not one of which
has anything to do with innovation or helping developers.

For one, Microsoft knows that "new and shiny" sells operating systems. Just
look at XP. What great and new things did XP give us over 2000 except a
shiny new interface and new names for the same old OS tools? Not much.

People aren't very smart. You can slap a new cover on an old book and it
will sell nearly as well as the first time it was released. Same thing goes
for cars, houses, campaign promises and operating systems. This is simply
user manipulation.

Another reason for Avalon would be to give back to the PC hardware industry
for it's help in making Microsoft the monopoly it is today. To get the "new
shiny" buttons in Longhorn, most users will need a new (or at least
upgraded) PC to reach the 3Ghz CPU, 512MB RAM and 3D capable graphics cards
needed to run it. This is just another "new and shiny" covering on the same
unstable core.

And, what PC manufacturer wouldn't agree to sell your OS if it means more PC
sales for them?

>
> --> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be
> written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native
> code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32
> will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO
> frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?
>
> Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all
> native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly
> made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be
> easier.

Bull. Microsoft is increasingly making it more difficult to move forward.
Just ask anyone that has had to port VB6 to VB.Net in an enterprise
application.

>
> --> 9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
> programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
> just to gain speed.
>
> He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
> wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.

Microsoft is like Neverland. All of Michael's (and Bill's) cheerleaders are
there telling him what he wants to hear to make sure they keep getting that
paycheck.

They make the decisions YOU have to live with. Don't fool yourself into
thinking that MS is in the business of suppporting customers. It's i the
business of supporting investors.

>
> --> Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who
> work for MS, Why ?
>
> Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
> it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
> that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
> law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
> world will come to you.

One word......money.

Jim


.

Quantcast