ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Microsoft exec: Desktop application software is not dead

Time: 08:46 EST/13:46 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum

A top Microsoft executive defended desktop application software, the source of the company's revenue for three decades, arguing on Tuesday that even services-based companies such as Google still need it.

The comments by Jeff Raikes, president of Microsoft's business applications division, come as Microsoft is trying to position itself as a company capable of delivering applications over the Internet as well as on PCs, its traditional distribution model.

"It's interesting some our competitors who like to espouse the idea that software is dead," said Raikes said. "I think they're worried that actually people like a lot of what they have at their fingertips and the real success is to use a combination."

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 163
Last | Next

The time now is 7:57:17 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 88850 (221.128.181.16) at 10/23/2007 9:41:59 AM

It's not dead but more and more people are developing for the web instead of the desktop. Esp on Windows, quality desktop apps are disappearing. Except for Office, MS is leaving development of desktop apps to partners and the industry, but they're not making use of APIs like WPF enough. Apple and Linux developers (KDE/GNOME) on the contrary are developing their own desktop apps, that's why we've got better choices and quality there. With Vista too, MS has delivered the capabilities in the form of APIs but no power apps to take advantage of it. Meanwhile, Web 2.0 sites are popping up every single day.

#2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/23/2007 10:28:45 AM

Why limit your potential customer base by tying your web app to a specific platform's API when you can program to a base standard and be accessible by anyone? This is especially true for gov't apps where they cannot be seen to favour any one vendor and must be accessible to all constituents.

#3 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 10/23/2007 12:35:00 PM

DTS is far from dead and it is actually only beginning.

The browser and browser based apps are what is dead.

Rich Internet Applications [RIA] is where web-conversant software and development energy are headed.

Web 2.0, as executed is going to be very short lived. Where the socialization and democratization of applications does apply within what we have come to call, "Web 2.0" will survive, and likely mature - rapidly. A balance between the socialization and democratization of the use of the web is what will mature and what we have come to understand Web 2.0 sites to be, will evolve and take on more and more of the traditional structures inherent to business - after all, it will be influenced by what money is used as fuel and those that own the fuel.

This is not to say that business itself will not change - it will, but a bit more slowly. Coalition Marketing Agreements [CMA's] will emerge around networks of businesses and micro and macro economies where the networks are made up of businesses and people responding to a much more consumer, pro-sumer and where applicable, patient driven model - people will traffic applicable networks and be served by more than one type of professional and by many at once. This will subject all forms of service to peer review.

Tools: Silverlight 1.1 - connected to .NET and all that it represents, will be the first, and perhaps best, used to enable this and the browser, as I shared in the past, will emerge not as a platform, but a diving board - to ClickOnce delivery of RIA's that run on anything - any OS.
Very rich clients that are web-conversant will run on the desktop as small, very lightweight apps that leverage code and data bits at the client, local servers and a wide variety of disparately located servers in the cloud. Eventually, they will be smart enough to reach out at any level and request and receive access to additional data and code from peers - regardless of where they are.

You will see an example of what I mean, and if I am right, even Latch will tip his hat. I will also share exactly and fully, how we did it. The desktop is more important and relevant than ever and Vista is uniquely capable of serving the needs I have described above - right down to securable objects and how much different its Gadgets are from Widgets. I do assess it is worth the wait - worth the work to build the tools. Trust me, it ain't easy and it ain't cheap.

#4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/23/2007 12:46:47 PM

#3: I can appreciate good work no matter how it is done behind the scenes. Can I assume that you're talking about the new AW? If so, I certainly hope I don't need .NET 3, Silverlight and IE7 to use it or you will have lost me (or is that considered a bonus?).

#5 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 10/23/2007 1:59:47 PM

#4, Of course not. There are two versions - one that is browser based [yuk] and one that requires SL only. Any browser can launch it and no version of the framework need be installed client side. You know this [I hope in any case - otherwise there is little point in discussing it with you, or anyone similarly familiar with how an RIA works]. Different versions, depending upon OS, are delivered. They are written the same, but compiled for each OS type - which one is delivered is of course dependent upon what the user/requestor is running when the link is clicked. The RIA is intended for contributors. SL, like Flash, is very small. Connected to .NET it allows devs to build very rich apps, very quickly. I repeat, the browser is dead.

Why did you ignore so much of what I wrote? certainly, you can't hope that all things are to remain limited to what the browser can support?

#6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/23/2007 3:19:21 PM

#5: Why did you ignore so much of what I wrote?

Because I totally misunderstood you. Whiff, swing and a miss.

#7 By 37 (66.191.117.13) at 10/23/2007 6:35:19 PM

I wouldn't object to some silverlight features on our new site.

#8 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 10/23/2007 11:01:09 PM

#3 "Rich Internet Applications [RIA] is where web-conversant software and development energy are headed." ... "Very rich clients that are web-conversant will run on the desktop as small, very lightweight apps that leverage code and data bits..."

So in that case you'd have to agree that DTS is indeed dead - slowly being replaced by RIA's, smart clients, thin clients etc.

#9 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 10/23/2007 11:10:30 PM

#8, It's a hybrid, really. The power of the desktop is still most important, and in fact, it will house the same ability to execute logic as its host and serve other very important requirements as well. Highly intelligent caching is only one example. So no, I don't think it is dead at all, but I do think that depending upon how much client processing is needed, will drive how much the client is leveraged.

#10 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 10/24/2007 9:49:59 AM

I think the solution proposed by lketchum is intriguing. I think that a Silverlight-only site would limit its user base, so the concept of building a site that can also render traditional HTML, albeit somewhat less glitzy than the Silverlight equivalent, would be good.

Although my exploration into Silverlight is very preliminary I do see some potential issues:

1) The underlying code is Microsoft's proprietary XAML. (Yes, I know the final parsed output is JavaScript.)
2) The plug-in does not have the installed base that Flash currently enjoys.
3) The media formats seem limited. Also, what would prompt Microsoft to support additional media formats?
4) Microsoft has a history of "borgish" behavior with "open" web technologies. Our definitions of "open" are not quite the same.
5) Is this just a reaction to Flash's popularity, or are we actually seeing a unified and truly open technology architecture solution? If the later, then maybe the geeks are regaining control of Microsoft. (Hurray!)

#11 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 10/24/2007 9:57:22 AM

Also, I think that once client computing requires a persistent Internet connection just to perform basic computing tasks the fun will be gone and "big business" will have regained control. Let's not forget why the personal computer became such a success--it empowered the user.

#12 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 10/24/2007 11:12:05 AM

#10, 11 - Excellent points. The SL version is designed to leverage the desktop and its power, fully. Similarly, it has a cache container - and like all such apps, can run without a connnection of any kind. When the network connection is restored, it syncs in the backgroud and according to rules - most recent, etc...

The whole idea came about not as a replacement for the browser based site, but for two reasons - tons of traffic comes from RSS, only. Well that just kills the business side of such sites. BUT, we also wanted to show/share what was possible - so the SL Client is an option, but I suspect that regulars would want to use it over any other means. It is pretty cool - runs in the BG/Sidebar/Systray if the user likes and alerts appropriately. When open, it works like a DT app, but uses the Internet and the host where it matters.

For the site, the model allows for different business models - e.g., ads, no ads, subscription basis, etc.... - again, just to show how and what can be done. How it is used, or if at all, isn't my call. We're just un-paid volunteers and we don't work that side of things and don't want to. It's just a community effort for us - not at all unlike the many others we support. Like many men in my position, we tend to move from one activity to the next all day/night - ICIM chair for medicine tonight, teen outreach and experience program in the AM and the American Medical Brigade in the afternoon. All around regular business work. This one just happened to be one of my favorites, because at least people debate - over at Newowin for example, one just witnesses a lot of carping. At least here we have some regular joe's and also some amazingly capable participants. The SL client is for them and has places for exchanges that make some sense - so for example, TL and I don't have to track multiple threads just to discuss his most recent build and if we desire, we can share out what we're working on. Stuff like that.

What the SL Client is not, is window dressing. It's not makeup. It's a highly intelligent client - a bit smarter than a smartclient and light - it does not feel sticky "in" the browser, as it is not "in" the browser. So it is not SL 1.0 - it IS SL 1.1 - connected to .NET and the host. What the guys running Awin choose to do with it, is up to them.

#13 By 1107599 (213.170.84.210) at 2/12/2014 11:47:51 AM

�� .
�� ,�� .
�� .
�� , � �� .

�� :
�� (�� 800 �� -�� )

�� .
�� .
�� !

�� +7(921)921-741-54-58
(812)959-88-19

�� <a href=http://www.zxcars.ru> http://www.zxcars.ru</a>

#14 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/27/2023 5:34:42 AM