| 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 |
 |
.NET? Well, perhaps .NOT | |
|
||
| Time: 03:20 EST/08:20 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
For a while, just about everything at Microsoft Corp. was .NET-this and .NET-that. Now, Microsoft is quietly retreating from a marketing strategy that some analysts say was a bad idea from the start. Part of the problem, they say, is that even though Microsoft has been adding the .NET tag (pronounced "dot-net") to its software products, many people haven't been able to figure out what they're talking about. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:39:02 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/10/2003 10:52:07 AM |
|
I personally am tired of the whole critique wars on Microsoft's MARKETING strategy. It's just a name of a product for god sakes. I personally wouldn't care if they called Windows Server 2003 (or Windows 2003 Server) a Toaster 5.0!
I just want the product to work as advertised, and I want it to do what I ask of it. Other than that, they can call it .NET, .NOT, .DOT, Sphincter, or whatever! |
| #2 By 7760 (12.107.12.130) at 1/10/2003 12:09:39 PM |
| Microsoft is constantly looking much further down the road than almost everyone else and they take flak for that because most people can't do the same. If Microsoft were to just look ahead one or two years just so that plebes could slowly digest small evolutionary changes, nothing radical and better would ever be conceived. If they were to do that, people would complain that Microsoft wasn't doing any innovating. Instead, they ignore the benefits of Microsoft's innovation and complain that they're too confusing for people to understand. Well, true innovation is never really easy to understand. If people still don't understand .NET after 3 or so years, then I say that it's their fault. Yes, it's a complex idea that's hard to understand, but everyone who will have a need to know could and should have learned it by now. It's not for the average user. It's for developers and administrators, and we're paid to learn and implement new ideas. I had a hard time understanding .NET early, but I read half a dozen net articles on it a few years ago and slowly grasped it. Others should do the same or keep their complaints to themselves, in my opinion. Anyways, that's my little rant. |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 2:41:05 PM |
|
Microsoft was consistent with its naming (kind of), but they did a poor job of defining it which left the hapless media bafoons scratching their heads (well, even more than they normally do).
.NET is (was): - .NET MyServices (aka HailStorm) which was a group of personal services like calendars, email, etc - .NET Enterprise Servers - Servers which provide certain functionality like web services, XML output, XML input, etc - .NET Framework - (this is the real meat) including C# and VB.NET |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 3:58:46 PM |
|
#11: JWM, of course not. MS jumped the gun with the whole .NET thing.
My guess is that they got the concept of .NET and the framework was part of that, but as the framework grew, I think MS started realizing that the Framework was the true prize in the group. |
| #5 By 12071 (203.217.0.182) at 1/10/2003 9:26:44 PM |
| http://news.com.com/2100-1001-979878.html |
| #6 By 5444 (67.1.37.24) at 1/11/2003 2:07:11 PM |
|
I agree with the 5% of what the frame work offers statement.
I Hope they break down the framework in to several certifications if .net connected is going to be web services. (which while allowing for a open way to communicate divergent data in a secure way across multiple platforms) If you have an all MS platform. it is highly inefficient to use web services and much much better to use .net remoting. (which is a better implementation of DCOM) maybe .net directx for managed apps using the managed platform for directX .net remoted for the .net remoteing platform. oh well, at least .net had a broader sense before. and the .net platform as the basis of a new API(well a future API) narrowing to just web services at this point I believe will be a hinderence in the future. El |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:39:02 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
