| 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 |
 |
Rival: Web Services Need Protection | |
|
||
| Time: 09:57 EST/14:57 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Applications, information and other services delivered over the Internet could threaten Microsoft Corp.'s desktop operating system monopoly and are therefore worthy of antitrust protections, a Sun Microsystems executive says. Many companies, including Microsoft, are rushing to offer Internet services — from instant messaging (news - web sites) programs to entire business software suites — online rather than through stores. Microsoft wants penalties in the company's antitrust case to only cover the consumer desktop market. Nine states want the remedies extended to cell phones, instant messaging and interactive television. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 334 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:56:15 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (64.175.43.69) at 4/10/2002 12:50:38 AM |
|
well, I guess I threw in UDDI for your benefit, an extra--I was responding to the anon's post when addressing you, sorry. I have read through w3c quite a bit, continue to do so... You didn't say MS invented XML, but you say they all but created it.. what the hell does that mean? From what I know of XML, the w3c, the industry, academia saw it as necessary and logical progession; they used SGML as much of what they needed to create was there... So in many ways XML preexisted MS and created itself from logical extension. By numbers alone, MS was only 1/30 of the XML working group. That's a far cry from: "Microsoft all but created and implemented the concept, design, and framework for Web Services."
And this: "Hell, I think Microsoft was the originator, innovator, and sole producer of the XML schema spec." That's laughable... between 1998 and 2000 the 4 documents that were submitted prior to the XML Schema Spec, regarding Schema, of the 15 people (who have organizations identified) only 2 are from MS. So what are you reading, daz? Contribution is admirable yes, but the large role you suggest is ridiculous, especially for a company of MS's size. I am looking at the names and specs, and I see webMethods just as frequently as Microsoft. I would expect to see MS a lot considering in most cases they are 4x -12x bigger than most of the companies listed. (By the way, MS is over 380x bigger than webmethods.) Facts, daz, facts. I know a bunch of them--and I've frequently said just separate the .0001% (your claim, what is that--half a line of code?) of IE that is the app from the render engine dll, simple. Just because you have the option of add/removing doesn't mean everything is removed on you, daz. Boy, oh boy. And if something was removed, you get prompted to install if you want the functionality--you do it... ONCE. Oooh, it "would SOOOoooo ruin Windows." Now where does the instability come from? Where? Can you explain how the same code just modular becomes less stable? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 03:32. |
| #27 By 3339 (64.175.43.69) at 4/10/2002 1:03:43 AM |
| Me udnerstand you just fine, soda--I was goading you silly. I guess you have the hardest time understanding anything I say. Sitting on your high horse now doesn't seal the deal for you anyway--so obviously you couldn't resist coming back. So far the only things I've had pointed out to me were things that you and others mistunderstood me to be suggesting, and I've tried to clear that up for you. But whatever soda, keep going in circles. |
| #28 By 3339 (64.175.43.69) at 4/10/2002 1:09:32 AM |
|
"Many of the features in Windows XP use IE in the background. IE, or rather the renderer in IE (which accounts for 99.9999% of IE's functionality) is used in just about every feature in Windows XP. Open My Computer and see the drives segmented according to type and the function bars on the left? All HTML rendered using IE's renderer. "
Ah, yes, see IE crash, see Outlook and my File Manager and my win2000 box crash because of that renderer even though I wasn't retrieving email (Outlook), connected to a device over the internet (File Manager), or reading html locally. Brilliant. Happens about twice a week to me just because I've got rendered html all over the place even though I don't need it, my whole machine dies. Progress. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 01:14. |
| #29 By 5444 (208.180.245.59) at 4/10/2002 3:07:27 AM |
|
SodaJerk.
Here is the issue with Java and the Swing interface. It is only consistant to Java programs. What you fail to see, is that with the cli and common runtime implemented on other platforms is that the implementation will use the native hooks of the OS it is running on. (or in the case of mono running on Windows GTK (and perhaps with a compiler option even the native .net runtimes. So in essense. If I write a program that is PURE .net framework. Ensure that it is cross platform capable.(meaning not using windows API for areas of the Program) I could in theory write a program in the frame work, that will run on the .net framework in a windows enviroment. on mono on a linux enviroment. (that looks like a gnome program or kde program if they get those wrappers done) So instead of having a Complete different UI(java swing) from the OS that it is running on, it has the Look and feel of the OS it is running in. So what does that mean. It means that the BCL which is part of the ECMA, ASP.net and ado.net(which have to be engineered) libraries have to be written to the platform they are on. While this does add aditional work for the implimentors. once it is implemented the Look and Feel of hte program is the same as the platform it is running on. So you ask what winforms look like on a platform outside of Windows. I say it will look like a program designed for that platform. As long as you stay within the confines of the network. Once you start implementing things ouside of hte platform, then it will only run on that platform. Be it windows or Gnome or KDE. or even the mac. or the ipod or the palm(if they get off of their high horse) or win ce.net platforms. El |
| #30 By 3339 (64.175.43.69) at 4/10/2002 3:21:36 AM |
|
El, you state exactly my point: GUIs for other platforms are still purely theoretical. This work still needs to be done so we don't know the results of it: if it works well, if it's slow, if it can be done. (Which of course it can, my point being: it's not determined yet.) Then you say, once it gets implemented, it is now platform dependent. No, crap. I'm not sure if you are saying that this can be fully handled in the CLI or if some of it needs to be in the app code. I am not confident that this can all be executed through the CLI, but maybe I am wrong. Even if it is implemented in the CLI, then you will get different performance for each app--presumably leaning in favor of MS. So you still have to code for each platform that you deliver on. Maybe you can separate these parts of the code out, I don't know, but still you are coding for each platform the parts that need to be coded for each platform. Yeah, I get that. And I admittedly don't know that much about it--but I also know that there is MS specific code to the framework--so, of course, this code cannot be ported to other platforms, maybe reversed engineered, but not necessarily or properly supported. So where's the misunderstanding? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 03:55. |
| #31 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/10/2002 3:58:19 AM |
|
You're not getting the point, Sodajerk. The GUI components are implemented by whomever implements the framework for a particular platform. For Mono, for instance, Ximian will mate the GUI functions of .NET to the native functionality of Gnome. Apple (or whomever does the Mac port) will map the .NET GUI calls to OS X native GUI functionality.
The software application developer does no extra work. If he uses standard .NET libraries, he only needs to write his code once. When the code is run on other systems, it automatically gains the native functionality of that system. The speed at which the application performs is totally up to how well the framework is implemented on the platform, and is subject to the platform's limitations. A GUI app running on MacOS X would have slower window resizing functionality verses the same app running on Windows because of the platform's limitations (example from known problem on previous OS X versions, haven't seen current version). All .NET code is natively compiled, so the only performance limitations come from the platform on which the code is running and how well the framework is implemented on that platform. |
| #32 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/10/2002 1:14:17 PM |
|
#55, Are you serious? Because I didn't keep insisting ftp was a service in every post, I hgave up on it? No, I was responding to the attacks from the left and the right and moving the argument along several topics--MS hasn't contributed more to web services than others, .Net is not cross platform, etc...
Editing? The post you point to the only thing I did to edit it was to continue to ADD extra statements. Initially, I only mentioned one spec and MS's involvement--I expanded it to cover other specs and other companies. Sorry. Most of my edits are to improve readability, weeny... I type fast and move on, but then I read my own posts and if there are 2 or more typos or something tricky to read, I edit it. I don't think I have EVER editted to adjust my comments. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 334 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:56:15 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
