| 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 |
 |
The Ties That Bind | |
|
||
| Time: 07:11 EST/12:11 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
The software landscape has changed so much in the past couple of years that the terms "bundling" and "Chinese Wall" are no longer the loaded words they once were. But the shift doesn't mean Microsoft is retreating from its campaign to get customers to deploy all Microsoft products, all the time, across all devices. Far from it. As will become clearer on April 24 when it launches its next Windows release, Microsoft is building everything but the kitchen sink into Windows Server 2003. (Microsoft isn't the only operating-system vendor doing this. Sun Microsystems -- which once cried foul over Microsoft's server-bundling strategy -- is currently on a nearly identical path with Solaris.) | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:17:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8062 (206.72.66.205) at 2/19/2003 10:47:42 AM |
|
I see MJF is at it again! As soon as I saw here sig I lost interest in the piece and stopped reading. She is one of the all-time old-time MS haters. Her long term anti-MS bias seems to be as natural as breathing to her.
I refuse to ever again read her crap! |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2003 2:11:32 PM |
|
The article distilled:
"This kind of deep integration can be a positive, if you are an all-Microsoft shop." "But if your company — like most — runs heterogeneous software from multiple vendors? Microsoft's deep integration among its own products may call into question whether a third-party's offering will work as well as Microsoft's...or work at all." "What's your take? Is Stutz right? Do the perils of increasingly deep integration outweigh the benefits for Microsoft and its customers?" Wow, you're right--the bias is insane! Why bother to pose the diffult questions when you can keep your head shoved up your @ss.... |
| #3 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 2/19/2003 3:06:30 PM |
| Sure, there is no bias. That's why she links to ProComp (an anti-MS orginization run by MS' competitors) and an almost 3 year old article whose topics revolve around Findings of Fact that have since been made largely irrelevant. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/19/2003 3:32:47 PM |
|
sodajerk - Yeah, isn't it amazing? For the first time in the history of computing Microsoft is supplying a compiler that only works well on their own OS. Sorry, the sarcasm is dripping.
This comment again shows just how little sodajerk(and the media pundits as well) fails to grok about software development. His idea of platform independence is the Java model, where you write the code and then pray to the high heavens it actually runs. This Java model has proven to be something of a failure, because it's not platform independent, rather it requires each group who maintains a different system to throw away their existing platform of tools and replace it with the Java platform. This Java platform is frustrating because it does not give the developers access to the featureset that they are used to, rather instead resorting to a lowest common denominator featureset which is unfortunately driven by persons with Unix blinders on. It also requires all software to be rewritten in Java, which is expensive and time consuming. The Microsoft approach, on the other hand, says... "forget about it". They provide the toolset that works extremely well with Windows, and they provide the hooks(SOAP, etc.) such that you can develop on the other platforms in whatever tool you want just plug in the module to utilize the SOAP pieces... and away you go. Cross-platform independence without having to rewrite all of your business software. The Microsoft approach is what the industry is moving towards. webmethods, biztalk and other application integration solutions are all dominated by this notion of web services. See the problem is not with the operating system, the problem is with the software system. The key is to let different systems share and talk to one another. That can be more easily solved than rewriting everything in Java. We shouldn't need to have this discussion again. Jerky boy, if you disagree I invite you to read up on the issues and argue in an intelligent manner. All you've thus far proven is that graphic arts students should not be responsible for software architecture decisions. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2003 6:55:27 PM |
|
"This comment again shows just how little sodajerk(and the media pundits as well) fails to grok about software development."
Cutting and pasting someone else's words shows I don't know something? You are something else soda for believeing your own sh!t you spew on people... of course, even someone like you wouldn't believe your own sh!t. Do you? Seriously? "All you've thus far proven is that graphic arts students should not be responsible for software architecture decisions." All you've done is show you'll mischaracterize me personally to avoid a tech issue. You know I'm not a student. You know I'm not a graphic designer. So let's recap: Jagged is the kiddy student... you are the MS apologist... BobSmith is a fanatic, but reasonabe fellow, a bit obssessed with religion, macross is a pathetic little gamer, etc... I have been employed as a database developer/adminsitrator and web developer for over three years, before this I was a graphic designer, before that I was a typesetter, printer, preprocessor, before that I was a student. I have been out of university for over seven year. Why do you have to TRY to denegrate me in pretending you have a point? Why are you so narrow minded and prejudiced to say that a type or background of a person belies the validity of their statements? ..."rather it requires each group who maintains a different system to throw away their existing platform of tools and replace it with the Java platform." Shows how little you know about Java. I haven't seen this happen. I haven't heard anyone speak of this... I know people who are working with other groups each using a different product: BEA, WebSphere, Borland tools... no one has had to abandon dick. "It also requires all software to be rewritten in Java, which is expensive and time consuming." Again, how little you know... Java wrappers and/or bridges had been built for most major platforms five years ago, buddy. Catch up. "The Microsoft approach, on the other hand, says... "forget about it"." What's this mysterious "forget about it?" Wouldn't that be: abandon all other development tools.... abandon any existing non-MS development and just wrap it in SOAP and learn another platform, forget what you already know... if you are considering buying a product and are shopping alternatives--forget about it, only buy the MS product... You are the one who is pathetically behind, soda. How can you argue that MS is more cross-platform or more easily so when all you can do is spout the same wonderful cure-all you are providing as a solution, the ONLY solution--wrap it in SOAP? Pathetic. "webmethods, biztalk and other application integration solutions are all dominated by this notion of web services." Yes, no sh!t? What's your point? You are acting as if MS is the only one doing web services. The point is specifically that web services should be platform independent, but MS continues to build products to only work with their products. This is not the case with Borland, BEA, IBM, webmethods, etc... Please... you are silly... "We shouldn't need to have this discussion again." No, we shouldn't if you are going to continue to say: "SOAP, SOAP, SOAP is the answer." Since MS does not have any advantage in this--everyone and anyone is using SOAP. And since you keep saying stuff like: "That can be more easily solved than rewriting everything in Java."--no one is running around saying rewrite everything in Java--where did your twisted little brain get the idea that this was the alternative? Are you trapped in 1996 or something? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 at 20:45. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2003 8:48:23 PM |
|
Besides, don't you understand the main gist of this argument has nothing to do with .Net or Java?
What the hell are you arguing and/or reading? What do you think I said that showed how stupid I was by quoting the article? This is about Office 11 offering nothing new unless you deploy Sharepoint. That Office, Access and SQL, Outlook are more and more tied to expensive server products. That new features aren't actually added to the products; they are tied to other MS products. I don't see any mention of Java in this article. Bit obsessed? It's a misguided obsession. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:17:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
