| 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 |
 |
Will Web 2.0 ultimately kill Windows? | |
|
||
| Time: 07:00 EST/12:00 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Mary Jo Foley writes:In Part 2 of “My Dinner with Allchin” (OK, so it was just a cup of tea), Microsoft Platforms and Services Co-president Jim Allchin touched on a few subjects about which he doesn’t often opine. Allchin shared his thoughts on Windows Live (which, along with Windows and developer tools also falls under his organization); competition with Google and Apple; and why a client-based version of Windows won’t ever completely disappear, regardless of how successful Web services become. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 304 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:25:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 10/30/2006 10:22:01 AM |
|
Heh. MS will buy Web2.0 (somehow) before this is allowed to happen.
TL |
| #2 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 10/30/2006 10:32:33 AM |
|
Wow Web 2.0, yeah no one needs an operating system or local client applications with Web 2.0... except when the network is down, or the service is down, or you don't trust your data to be stored in the cloud, or you need high-performance and low-latency, etc., etc. Why are people so eager to repeat the mistakes of 10 years ago 10 years later?
Note: I should make this a sig :-) (c) 2006 n4cer |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/30/2006 11:52:43 AM |
|
Web 2.0 is as much a branding statement used to describe how more modern distributed technologies are used vice anything else. As far as having a platform that enables developers to leverage the technologies one may use to deliver new experiences, Microsoft is not only way ahead, it has been and leading very strongly. It has been in very active development of an entire suite of tools to support dev teams that are expanding development opposite a model that uses a powerful client and browser that best support the environment that is emerging. For two years, for example, IE 7 development centered on this - hence why I was so worked up about how the tech pundits seemed to gush over Firefox 2.0 while they largely ignored the best parts of IE 7 [those that are not seen].
ATLAS, Expression, SQL 2005 and .NET 2.0/3.0 [especially], are just the beginning of new tools that are designed to support developers as they work to use Vista/IE 7/Other browsers, to work as a foundation and launching pad into the experiences people are going to come to expect. Since Microsoft has a better plan for this - a hybrid one that supports a much more democratic corporate network structure - strict compliance parellel to much more open structures that support how people actually work and live, they will win no matter what "Web 2.0" properties emerge. A look at Yahoo's main site is a great example of Web 2.0 technologies as they will appear in their initial form - though the model is still strictly "portal" oriented - e.g., new tools, same old platform. To see a blend of new ideas and "some" newer technologies at the same time, head over to, http://www.podshow.com As it always has been, it's all about the developer and the platform that they will wish to use - again, that appears to be largely Microsoft centric as it is the most complete and certainly powerful - opposite a very large installed base. The ironic part... "Web Standards!" - Microsoft has already made so many eat those demanding words... they just don't know it, yet and for those that do... well, they just don't want to say it - IE 7 has the strongest available support for these new tools baked in and they are more compliant. As I have said, I bet Bill Gates is just bored with it all - how foolish competitors seem to remain. |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/30/2006 11:58:50 AM |
|
n4cer--exactly. There are so many issues to be sorted out with "Web 2.0." Maybe they will sort them out, but then the question becomes "Why?" I mean, if they solve the problem of having an offline client... then we're right back to square one with a "fat" client... except that development is far more difficult.
Why is everyone so anxious to pile everything on top of the browser as the sole application platform? It severely limits what you can do, and while AJAX is a workaround, it's a bear of a workaround... and it still can't accomplish things you could do on a regular "fat" client. And even then, you still have different browsers that will handle things differently, and you're right back (again) at square one as if you were developing "fat" clients for different platforms--it's just trading one set of problems for another... except you're tying your hand behind your back by insisting on the browser as your application platform. Another problem that I see rarely discussed about web-delivered apps is that when an update is made to the app, you're getting it whether you want it or not. It may break something, for all you know... and at this point in time at least, it's far more difficult to test it in advance. This is a change management nightmare. And how about customization? Say you want to add a plug-in for producing invoices from your accounting system for Google's word processor. Or perhaps you want expanded document comparison functionality via an add-in. Or maybe, you just want to customize the menus/buttons for your organization (perhaps differently for different departments/working groups), or lock down some features. How would you do it? And when they update the app, what if it breaks your customizations? These are all very common issues in businesses, and you just never hear anyone talk about them. These are all situations best served now by "fat" clients, and I'm not sure how "Web 2.0" apps will ever address them well. These tech media outlets need some serious, in-the-trenches IT bloggers to open up these issues. |
| #5 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 10/30/2006 5:03:01 PM |
|
#4: Why is everyone so anxious to pile everything on top of the browser as the sole application platform?
Because pundits and silly investors are always looking for "the next big thing". The functionality we had in fat clients 10 years ago was more than sufficient for the vast majority of client computer tasks. Once this saturation became apparent, we saw the "gold rush" for something new and exciting: the world wide web. Now that surfing the web from a fat client is old news, we need something new: a thin client that acts like a fat client while running on a fat client. And, as an added bonus, we throw in the "just annoyingly enough" variable nature of distributed networking. But wait, there's more! By using some mega-corporation's server-based application, you can help contribute more data about yourself (and your business) to a huge company that loves to sift through this data and sell it to others. Side bar: Just think about how your use of credit, debit, and frequent shopper cards is providing companies with an exquisite profile about your eating, travel, entertainment, and other buying habits. Scenario: every week Mr. Smith uses his cards to buy steaks at the grocery store, a case of cheap beer from the liquor mart, and just recently bought a diet guide from Amazon. Wouldn't his insurance company pay to know that about him? Perhaps, it's time for a subtle life insurance rate hike at the next renewal. Oh, and jack up his auto insurance rate too since he drinks alcohol. While transaction fees were the initial cash cow for plastic usage, the real value is now in the easily correlated data. The Web 2.0 is a bonanza for data collection and dissemination. (By the way, I'm not paranoid and I have never bought anything questionable, but I do pay cash for nearly ever purchase because I don't think big companies need to know any more about me than they already do.) |
| #6 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/30/2006 9:45:53 PM |
|
Over all, one can begin to think of web 2.0 technologies as a means to provide a rich experience without the use of COM, or any other form of remote method invocation - until proven secure, or made secure, it will likely only trade one set of security challenges for a new one.... [if one cares to look on down side...].
#5, is dead on here folks.... I have a client who specializes in CC and debit based customer loyalty and rewards programs - their technology is incredibly powerful and in their case, very responsible - e.g., never shared, entirely voluntary and secure. However, be very careful and when using a CC or debit card NEVER/NEVER answer what seem to be harmless questions - e.g., "May I have your zip code....?" Say, no, you may not. The reason is that in most states, answering even one benign personal question, like a zip code or. tel. number implies consent and then the retailer has the right to capture and mine all the data on your mag stripe - for all purchases you have made, which in some cases, extends to the issuing bank and finally he CC company itself. Implied consent allows them to mine this data, and share it with these parties. This is not true of all states, but as I said, many/most states allow this. If you value your privacy, please consider saying NO and loudly, when asked for such information. If the retailer uses your information regardless of your wishes, then you would have grounds supporting a complaint. Like #5, I use cash. Remember, I've seen these applications very close up and have first hand knowledge about how they work. Some are great and truly offer consumers a lot [our client's is great and as I said, very responsible] - others are just awful and I've seen them, too. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 304 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:25:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
