| 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 |
 |
Microsoft Formally Ordered to Carry Java | |
|
||
| Time: 00:26 EST/05:26 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
A federal judge on Tuesday formally ordered Microsoft Corp. to distribute Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Java programming language in its Windows operating system. The order by U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore comes nearly a month after Motz concluded that it was needed to remedy Microsoft's past antitrust violations. It requires Microsoft to begin putting Sun's Java into Windows within 120 days. A Microsoft spokesman has said the company will file an immediate appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:50 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7711 (12.107.81.66) at 1/22/2003 7:02:46 AM |
|
This story has a few more details....
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-981381.html "Part of Tuesday's order says that, effective immediately, Microsoft may no longer distribute "any product that includes any copy of Microsoft's Virtual Machine for Java other than" software licensed from Sun. In general, it also prevents Microsoft from distributing its own Java interpreter in future products except as necessary to fix "critical security vulnerabilities or critical customer defects." " ???????? Who's to say what's critical? "Motz's order also gives Microsoft 120 days to include Sun's Java runtime environment in every copy of Windows and Internet Explorer it sells. For versions of Windows in languages other than English, Microsoft need not include Sun's software until it receives a localized version. " At least that burden will fall where it should.... "Microsoft must also "notify customers via any and all Microsoft update services" that the latest Java software is available and "refrain from disabling" Java, the order says. " Hopefully that means we (as consumers.....remember us....we're the ones that are supposed to be protected....) will have the choice of installing or not installing. More Motz crap........ |
| #2 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 1/22/2003 7:57:09 AM |
| I can't imagine that crap standing up to an appeal |
| #3 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 1/22/2003 9:56:34 AM |
|
I can see it now....Next you know, Netscape Navigator, Opera, and AIM, and ICQ will be ordered on MS in a similar way.
Lawyers suck. Period. Lawyers are the root of all evil, not money. |
| #4 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 1/22/2003 10:15:12 AM |
|
I don't want to use Sun's Java... it sucks beyond believe... though it probably doesn't matter I don't use anything that has to do with Java on my local machine.
All I need is Flash and Shockwave... anything in Java just won't be for me :) |
| #5 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 1/22/2003 11:40:39 AM |
| I agree RedHook. It will be not be allowed on appeal. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/22/2003 1:21:20 PM |
|
FinancialWiz - "software titles you mentioned were not modified or supposedly "developed/improved" by MS to the point where the original software was made to appear buggy or faulty "
But then again, neither was the Microsoft JVM. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument. |
| #7 By 5444 (67.1.37.34) at 1/22/2003 2:19:23 PM |
|
While Macross says it in more flowery language than I would. what he states is a fair assessment of Sun's actions over the past several years.
Point of fact. MS JVM would run Java Code out of the box with little to know issue at about 30% to 40% faster than Sun's jvm in windows. (sad part is, even with the release of 1.4 from Sun, Microsofts JVM is still faster) and we are talking about a JVM that has only been updated for security and other fixes for the past several years. The question becomes this. When Sun won the Court case and had MS stop developing the JVM beyond 1.1 (now get this, there has been 3 major versions of the JVM since this time). Sun hasn't worked to put out a good working JVM for windows since. and that was emphasized when MS didn't install the Older 1.1 JVM in XP. Now remember this is a Company (Sun) that allows companies like Apple and IBM to modify the Java runtime to meet their needs and not sue them. (there are apple extensions for instance that only run on the Mac platform for obvious reasons, graphics platforms have to be optimized for the platform they are on to be effective) And we won't go into the fact that you can't effectively write a J2EE ap that is crossplatform between the several Java j2ee implementations. While 1.4 is more stable than 1.3, it is still unbearably slow at loading even the simplest java app which is why Java on the desktop doesn't work. on the backend where little to no access to the swing graphic libraries are needed than yes it is ok. El |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/22/2003 7:22:08 PM |
|
FW, you are really bothering me. Several times now I have posted what the real issues and facts are about the Microsoft Virtual Machine for Java. Not once have you or anyone else refuted my claims. Yet time after time, you spout off about the damage Microsoft did with their Virtual Machine. Let's try this, you post some facts, or stop posting on the subject.
Let's state some facts that we accept as givens. We'll then take a look at your statements with respect to the facts. If you can refute the facts, then feel free. Ref: http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=14342&Group=1&redir=%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Easp%3FKeyword%3D%26Search%3Ddate%26Month%3D12%26Day%3D04%26Year%3D02%26&redirname=Search Microsoft ships the same VM they shipped years ago. It is just as compatible or not compatible as it ever was. There never has been a VM from Microsoft any more compatible or than the current one. Microsoft's Java tools (Visual J++) never prevented a developer from compiling pure Java source code to pure Java byte code. In other words, J++ allowed you to write fully Sun compliant pure Java applications. Microsoft's VM is fully Java compatible with the exception of JNI (Java Native Interface) and the Java RPC (I think it was called RMI). Rather than JNI to access non Java libraries (usually the libraries JNI allows access to are native OS libraries), Microsoft provided J/Direct to access OS libraries. Further, J/Direct allowed OS and similar libraries (in other words COM based apps) to call into Java libraries. In place of RMI, Microsoft opted for DCOM which the OS already supported. K, so let's summarize. Microsoft's Virtual Machine for Java ran all 100% Pure Java Sun Certified Apps. Microsoft's development tools for Java, Microsoft Visual J++, produced 100% Pure Java bytecode. In other words, Microsoft fully implemented the Java specification. Microsoft also gave developers the ability to write code specific to the Windows platform (Sun did the same thing for Solaris, check the com.sun.* packages for specifics). Microsoft's addition allowed non Java code to call into Java libraries (thus enhancing the value of Java on the Windows platform) which Sun didn't provide. K, let's summarize that again. Microsoft's VM and dev tools were 100% Java compatible. They fully implemented the Java specification. Many 3rd parties benchmarked Microsoft's VM as the fastest on the market. Microsoft provided additional tools and features in their VM and dev tools which enchanced that Java offering. In like manner BEA Systems, Oracle, IBM, and Apple (among others) have done likewise on their platforms). So, let's take a look at your statements again in view of these facts. Wrong #3, the software titles you mentioned were not modified or supposedly "developed/improved" by MS to the point where the original software was made to appear buggy or faulty and then integrated into Windows or included in the Windows Update website for download etc. (in other words hijacked). Do you understand now what these statemens are lies. Any Java software than ran on the Sun VM also ran on Microsoft's VM. So, there was no appearance of buggy, faulty, or otherwise with respect to Microsoft's VM running 100% Pure Java applications. So, what Microsoft did was enhance the value of Java in the market place and more specifically on the Windows platform. This they did without in any way crippling the Java specification or any Java apps regardless of their origin (e.g. from Eclipse, VisualAge, Forte, J++, etc). |
| #9 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/22/2003 7:22:40 PM |
|
continued from previous...
You can argue with me all you want about that but court rulings support what I just stated (not just this case but the one before it ordering MS to remove their "modified/improved/developed/whatever you want to call it to make you feel better" plugin from Windows). So what you stated will not happen, so stop overexaggerating and spreading garbage. OK, we already understand that Microsoft's VM in no way harmed any existing Java applications. Further, I don't recall any ruling that required Microsoft to do anything with their virtual machine. If you are referring to the settlement with Sun in early 2001, this wasn't a judgement, this was a settlement. It ordered Microsoft to not update (to the latest version of Java 1.1.3 at the time) their VM other than for security fixes. You might be confusing this with a ruling regarding Visual J++ 6.0 back in 1998. This ruling required a few message boxes to appear when using the dev tool, to make explicitly clear to the developer when he was using the Java API (java.*) or the Microsoft libraries (com.ms.*). The Microsoft libraries were known as Microsoft Java Lanaguage Extensions IIRC. So, we see that you are the one ignorant one in this situation. You are the one spreading garbage. Me thinks #2 and #5 are incorrect, but we will see. If anything MS will have been judged guilty and the remedy might be modified but that is it. Take off the rose-colored glasses. We'll see, but I suspect it'll be over turned. You can bet that Judge Kollar-Kotelly, would never have to taken so drastic (and foolish IMO) move as ordering this injunction. #2 I have had no problems with Java on my machine since the latest plugin release. Are you basing your opinion on previous versions, hatred, or the rants other filled with hate for Sun that oithers have spewed? I wonder........... I don't see what this has to do with #2's comment. For your information, I've never had a problem running (or writing) Java on my machine either. I've also only used the Microsoft Virtual Machine for Java. However, Java desktop apps are so few and far between, that it is extremely infrequent that I come across Java apps. I'd prefer a native Windows application any day of the week to a Java app. As for Java applet, Flash's abilities are superior to that of Java. Macromedia offers more to developers and they also don't require single language solutions. They support ColdFusion, ASP, ASP.NET, JSP integration. By far, a Flash solution is superior to Java in the browser. Let me also say that MS is no different than any other company when it comes to using litigation so please get off the high horse. Um, the difference between Microsoft suing someone and Sun suing someone is that Microsoft has a leg to stand on - blatant trademark, copyright, or patent infringement. They are not even close to being as litigious as Sun is. Sun's CEO Scott McNeally has stated regarding their anti trust suit against Microsoft that we'll see how it goes and see if the court thinks we have a case. Basically, he's throwing dirt at the wall and hoping something sticks. (I'll find the vid if you want) Microsoft, sues when they have a solid cut and dry case. Sun's name stinks in the industry over their litigation against Microsoft with respect to Java. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
