| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Sun's Schwartz bashes Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Sun Microsystem's Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of the company's software group, has criticized Microsoft for pulling the plug on products that had a JVM (Java virtual machine) deemed incompatible with Sun's. In an open letter on Sun's Web site, he said that Microsoft had lost sight of customer priorities. "Microsoft's recent unilateral decision to discontinue support for Windows 98 and other products as of December 23, 2003 offers users a lesson, and an opportunity," Schwartz wrote. "It's a lesson in how a company with legendary market dominance can lose sight of customer priorities, and force an unnecessary transition onto a customer base already paralyzed with viruses and security breaches." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:34:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 12/22/2003 9:53:52 AM |
|
Classic. An opportunity to slight your competition and force your users to upgrade.
This was entirely unnecessary. MS tried to pollute the Java specification with their proprietary extensions. Some MS developers saw potential in Java. Gates oppressively screamed "Windows". Sun enforced the contract signed with MS. MS pouted, built Java#... I mean C#. MS lost court case over Java contract. MS cried, took ball home. MS devised scheme to slight Sun and force customer upgrades. I have been a MS customer for over 17 years. One of my main computers at home uses Windows 98 and works just fine. I have customers that still have Windows 95. Sometimes I just shake my head at MS's childishness... |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/22/2003 10:28:15 AM |
|
I am continually disappointed with Sun microsystems, and their refusal to adopt the .NET standard on their systems.
This shows clear lack of respect on the part of Sun towards their customers priorities. |
| #3 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 12/22/2003 3:08:01 PM |
|
Oh come on, sodablue! The difference here is that MS was bound by a contract. MS entered the contract as a convenience, then tried to subvert Java. Sun enforced the contract and MS had a tantrum. The sad thing is that for the first several years MS's JVM was the fastest on Windows and, even ignoring the proprietary extensions, very consistent in its behavior. This comes down to MS trying to get their way and losing.
parker - Why pay MS to port Office and SQL Server when open source will do it for you? OpenOffice.org and MySQL are both very capable contenders to MS offerings. Granted MySQL isn't up to the SQL Server's ease of use, but that is only one factor in ROI. |
| #4 By 61 (65.32.171.138) at 12/22/2003 10:55:45 PM |
|
I hate to break the news to you, but Win98 is now 6yrs old and is built on a retired kernel, that is how long Microsoft supports OSes.
Also, just because Microsoft is droping support does not mean you can no longer use it, and you sure as hell can always get help for it from many other people. Also, when Microsoft was told they can no longer do the Java thing, they stopped completely, at which point Sun sued them! It just goes back and forth, Sun tells MS 'no more Java', MS says 'well, alright', Sun cries 'foul!' |
| #5 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 12/23/2003 11:18:14 AM |
|
I love how many of you have rewritten Java history to appease your pro-MS bias.
#6: MS didn't try to subvert Sun with Java. If Sun would have worked with MS more, then we would all be using a lot more Java today (and less C#/.net). MS made many improvements for the Java programmer (at the time) with Visual J++ and related technology and then all of the sudden Sun changed their mind. I was developing with Java since its beta versions on MS platforms. MS foisted Visual J++ with its Windows extensions in an attempt to create platform lock-in. Any reasonable Java developer at the time could see this and avoided the proprietary extensions in MS classes. The IDE was, as usual, of the typical high quality a developer could expect from MS. Sun didn't have the experience, at the time, to create a good and decent performing set of GUI classes. If only MS had decided to work with Sun and a create a set of cross-platform GUI classes... that would have been awesome. #7: Java ... a tool for "Write once (on Solaris) run anywhere (on Solaris). Sun was horrified when Microsoft made it run faster on Windows. If it ran faster on Windows, why would anyone run it on Solaris. My experience shows that your statement was true in the earlier days with respect to GUI-based applications. As the focus of Java turned to the server (probably for the better) and Sun, among others, began to improve JIT compiling VMs, the disparity effectively levelled off. I do tend to agree with you that Sun wants to push their expensive hardware with their expensive software. But then MS wants a homogenous MS desktop, so what's the point? #9: I hate to break the news to you, but Win98 is now 6yrs old and is built on a retired kernel, that is how long Microsoft supports OSes. You're still missing the point. Customers, unlike you and me, generally want their computers to be like toasters... they should just work year after year. Is this realistic? Absolutely not, but it's reality. I've consulted to some major corporations (American Airlines, Nortel, GTE, et al.) and smaller companies, you would be amazed at the lack of progress with respect to the desktop and keeping it current. I run a mix of systems at home: Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and over the holidays will be loading Longhorn. I do this because I'm interested in newer technologies, but have to support the old as well. Also, when Microsoft was told they can no longer do the Java thing, they stopped completely, at which point Sun sued them! No, no, no. MS was told they could not pollute Java with proprietary extensions. MS was trying to fragment the Java community and Sun was going to put a stop to that by enforcing the agreement. MS chose to not abide by the contract. Sun tells MS 'no more Java' Did you ever see that episode of Star Trek titled "Mirror, mirror"? Everything is mostly the same, but... Time to get back to our "universe". This post was edited by ch on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 11:18. |
| #6 By 61 (65.32.171.138) at 12/23/2003 3:04:49 PM |
|
ch: Sun told Microsoft they could no longer develop their own runtime environment (which is why Sun's own JRE has come up to speed with Microsoft's) and that they could not distribute it anymore after a certain date.
Flat out, you need to read up on what really happened. Also, dropping support for Windows98 will not make it no longer work, and as I have said, there are many places in which to get it fixed (heck, most people take thier comp to BestBuy or CompUSA to get it fixed, they don't call Microsoft), plus they still have the KB articles online for anyone's viewing pleasure. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/23/2003 3:20:45 PM |
|
ch - "The difference here is that MS was bound by a contract."
And Sun invalidated the contract. The contract no longer applies. "Any reasonable Java developer at the time could see this and avoided the proprietary extensions in MS classes. " Exactly. You had a choice. Sun didn't want you to have a choice, so they stopped Microsoft. That's what Schwartz is saying here, choice is bad, you should just use Sun products and be smart. |
| #8 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 12/23/2003 4:44:59 PM |
|
#11: Sun told Microsoft they could no longer develop their own runtime environment...
Wrong. Sun told MS that they could no longer distribute incompatible tools, browsers, and so forth. (The word incompatible is significant.) MS's extensions and other "dirty tricks" were fragmenting the Java cross platform specification. Sun wanted MS to build compatible Java software. Interestingly, that what MS started doing very early on. ...[MS] could not distribute it anymore after a certain date. Once again, distribute the incompatible Java software. Sun went on to sue MS again when MS had their childish fit and pulled all Java from the newer OSs. All Sun wanted was for MS to not jack with Java by polluting it with proprietary Windows extensions. If MS had done just that, we would see a fast, compliant JVM in Windows distributions today, no early support expiration of older products, and a Java community that benefitted sooner from more pure, cross platform Java implementations. MS's intent (apparently!) was never to give Sun an inroad into the Windows desktop by playing fair and keeping compliant. The confusion created by MS served its purpose to created enough FUD to inhibit Java desktop implementations. The funny thing is that the performance and inconsistency of the Java GUI classes were sufficient to inhibit Java desktop implementations. Flat out, you need to read up on what really happened. Since I experienced it and followed it quite closely I have confidence that my recollection is accurate enough for these entertaining discussions. #12: Sun didn't want you to have a choice, so they stopped Microsoft. Sun wanted compliance. The MS Java extensions were truly unnecessary and only provided confusion primarily for the less informed--think non-technical management. Funny how choice and compliance are used when convenient by MS. MS wanted choice in Java, but OEMs were not allowed choice when creating Windows desktop layouts (compliance or else, but that's another lawsuit)... |
| #9 By 61 (65.32.171.138) at 12/24/2003 3:04:49 AM |
|
The MS Java extentions were there for the sole purpose of Windows developers who were not intending their software to run on other platforms anyway.
If you look it up, they flat out said 'we do not want you making your JVM'. Microsoft taking MS Java out of Windows XP is most certainly not some 'childish' act. Microsoft was to stop distributing MS Java within approx. one year (from the time XP was released). Not only that, but Microsoft had a thing that comes up and says 'you need Java for this action, download it here'. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 303 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:34:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
