| 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 |
 |
Sun's Java Undermining Itself, Microsoft Says | |
|
||
| Time: 15:21 EST/20:21 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. sought in court on Tuesday to portray Sun Microsystems's Inc. Java programming language as a product threatened by its own shortcomings rather than any anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft. On the second day of hearings on what antitrust sanctions should apply to the software titan, Microsoft attorney Steve Holley introduced a series of e-mails and memorandums from Sun employees who had reported concerns about Java's performance. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:32:42 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (168.215.253.242) at 3/19/2002 4:13:28 PM |
|
I love that the Sun guy was trying to argue that Java is speedy, doesn't hog RAM, and is quicker than .NET.
This shit gets better every day. (grabs a bucket of popcorn to watch Sun executives further embarass themselves) |
| #2 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 3/19/2002 4:21:12 PM |
| giggle |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/19/2002 5:28:19 PM |
| Microsoft also NEVER had the technology they're talking about at the time the illegal actions are alleged to take place to compete with Java. I still haven't heard any testimony of mass defections from Java to .Net from the likes of IBM, Borland, BEA, HP, Oracle, etc... Nevermind the fact that this is all action that either resulted from MS's illegal activities or at least followed it. Sun's contention is that MS usurped the hype. |
| #4 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 3/19/2002 5:42:49 PM |
| So jerk, it is now illegal to talk about the features of your product before you develop it? |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/19/2002 6:02:50 PM |
|
At least when Microsoft started talking about the features of .Net they had a beta version to ship at the PDC back in 2000.
When Java started talking about SunONE and all the wonderful things they were going to do with Web services, they had squat. It was simply a reactionary move on their part to counter with FUD and vaporware what Microsoft was creating. But then again, Java has been doing that from day one. I remember back when Corel was working on porting Wordperfect to Java and Sun was tauting how this would eliminate the constant upgrade cycle. We would be able to run Java apps on a 486dx2/66! So I downloaded Java Wordperfect, ran it on my 486 laptop... It had the functionality of Notepad with the speed of, well... molasses in january. Microsoft is right, the main problem with Java is Java itself, or more appropriately Sun. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/19/2002 6:04:43 PM |
| Ghostrider, I didn't say that--I just think it's stupid to say a company is failing now on its own, when there is a ruling that MS illegally acted to impair Java 6 years ago, and now MS is parading a bunch of silliness how Sun and their clients have concerns about .Net, which was inspired by Java and largely a result of that illegal action, when .Net itself is not in large deployment, there are few realword non-MS specs and tests comparing it to Java, MS hasn't provided a list of companies defecting from Java, and there is little recourse to evaluating what the true effects of MS's actions were upon Java as it is today. After all, Sun would have been happy if MS's JVM was the fatest if it had stayed compliant. And if MS had stayed compliant and continued promoting Java (do you all forget that?), then you might all be talking about how Java runs best on Windows. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/19/2002 6:18:35 PM |
| Coach, no usurping hype is not illegal, but what world do you live on where breaking contracts is okay, in fact necessary, because it suits your goals. Besides, your reading of it is just ridiculous--all they did was try to make it "easier to operate." What I am saying about the hype was that MS was promoting Java up until they started to added Windows only extensions. This morphed into J++, then COOL (that never saw the light, that name), and then C#. So in other words, they couldn't have gotten to this point without learning from Sun. In the meantime, MS started slamming Sun and saying that they were going to deliver something better. We still don't really have much of this new platform even if VS.Net is out so we're going on 6+ years. And in the meantime, MS was able to use the press, their partners, OEMs, etc... against Java (albeit legally), and yet this hasn't prevented the large industry leaders from dedicating themselves to Java and pursuing it, and I don't see them leaving that platform any time soon. |
| #8 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/19/2002 6:55:15 PM |
|
Hey Java is great as long as you don't need a GUI to use it.
But don't use Sun's piss poor VM. Almost everyone elses is faster than the creators of the technology. But here are the things that are Killing off Java, and it isn't the MS deal. 1.) its lack of performance. 2.) its inconsistant UI compared to the system it is running on. as I said if you don't need the UI than Jave is great. 3.) WORA doesn't work at the J2EE level. namely for the same reason that Sun Sued MS in the First Place. Interesting that Sun Sued one company but not the others that extend Java to cover needs that JAVA is lacking in. And continues and continues to do. 4.) Sun Sued to have MS stop supporting the VM. Effectively hampering its own development of the Java Platform. Because suddenly the Largest distribution point is limited to a Older version of the technology out of the box. BUT SUN failed to offer a solution of its own. Which is why they found thier pants around their ancles when MS Chose not to distribute the Java vm in XP. It is Suns Technology, they chose not to support the MS systems and now they are screaming that MS should cover for Suns inadequacies. Even if MS did extend the technology to make it "better". Sun did nothing on its part. 5.) not once, not twice but 3 times Sun withdrew the Java language from the Open standards Which alianated several of the developers of Java language Especially those in the OS community. But now lets look at the 2 tier approach. Sun won this court case some 3 or 4 years ago. In that Period of Time MS has made the .net Platform. and the MS VM is still light years ahead of the Sun's VM. Now Sun sat on it laurels and hasn't remotely worked on the platform by offering an improved VM for all systems. yet alone Windows. Now Sun is attaching MS on grounds of Licensing. but It was Suns responeability to develops it own technology and give people reason to aquire the technology. In this Sun has failed. Should MS be forced to cover for the Inadequacies of the Vendor?? El |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 3/19/2002 9:42:30 PM |
|
"Microsoft tried to extend the language so that interoperations with native code would be easier for developers." THEIR native code for THEIR developers. They didn't do it for the benefit of JAVA or SUN or for programming in general. Not only did they do it for their own benefit; they did it to harm SUN.
"The implication is that everyone should write all software without learning on what those have done before them, and is utterly ridiculous." No, I am saying MS had high level access to Java because they agreed to Sun's term; as has happened before, MS then took what they learned to create something which couldn't have existed without Java. Most previous advances in programming resulted from standards developments and academic research and then bits of private innovation. Java was 100% a private enterprise--even if it too learned lessons from the past. MS is so big on its IP rights, but what about Sun's? "I am glad that you think advertising is legal." I wasn't suggesting this was limited to advertising and I wasn't suggesting that it was ALL legal. |
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/19/2002 11:02:41 PM |
|
I think you're all missing the funniest part of all of this baloney...
Microsoft created extensions that allowed Java on Windows to interoperate with COM. This resulted in about a 5x performance increase over all other JVMs. Pure Java could still be both run and written on Windows with the Microsoft JVM with no problems. This, of course, was a violation of Sun's hold on Java... er... the contract Microsoft had with Sun. So Sun sued and won. Simple enough. But wait... nearly every major implementation of J2EE (IBM's in particular) does a *very* similar thing. In fact, Web Sphere’s J2EE implementation has many extensions that won't run on anything but IBM. Yes, you can write pure Java that works with Web Sphere (just like you could with MS' JVM), but few do because of the incredible performance benefits of working with the proprietary extensions by IBM. Yet Sun hasn't said a word about IBM, or the many other proprietary extensions of J2EE by various vendors. #13 - "...they couldn't have gotten to this point without learning from Sun." Baloney. Tell me a single thing in Java that is original. Nearly *everything* builds on other technologies... with incremental improvements along the way. .NET is no different, as it has improved the concepts behind nearly every aspect of Java, and has introduced many new and innovative cool things. For instance, .NET uses a generational garbage collector which is technically the most advanced ever written. Original? Nope. Did Microsoft base it off Sun's work... hell no. Do you understand the CLR? Aside from having big-picture similarities to Java, it couldn't be more different. The CLR has a far more general and advanced VM than the JVM, including a completely different garbage collection ideology, a completely different JIT process (which, by the way, Microsoft wouldn't have had access to from Java anyway since Java didn't include a JIT in those days), multi-language support, different optimization processes, a full fledged intermediate language (MSIL), and support for countless other things Java and the JVM have never had. The CLR and the JVM have so little in common, using anything they learned from Java would have simply complicated things. "...there are few real word Non-MS specs and tests comparing it to Java..." Actually, there are quite a few, some better than others. For instance: http://www.devhood.com/tutorials/tutorial_details.aspx?tutorial_id=203 In addition, both PC Magazine and EWeek have published studies: http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=702&a=23115,00.asp Also, keep in mind that .NET has been officially out for all of about a month. There are, of course, the Microsoft comparisons: http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/default.aspx If you find fault in the comparisons, please, post your concerns. I can understand not trusting them to begin with. |
| #11 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/19/2002 11:02:52 PM |
|
#18 - Microsoft was an industry leader (for real, this time) on the XML/SOAP push. Sun still refuses to join the rest of the industry in creating more coherent standards for XML Web Services. Sun's job so far has been a hacked-together implementation as a knee-jerk reaction to .NET.
"...web services existed quite some time before the name "web services" was even coined...[before] development suites were written... enabling totally inexperienced people (I won't honor them by calling them programmers) to develop web services." I agree that the same basic concept of web services has existed for a while, with CORBA being the best example of such an implementation. The thing is that CORBA does not interoperate globally, nor do any of the other web-service concepts that have been implemented in the past. The first to achieve a happy balance of power and global interop is the XML/SOAP model that .NET employs. As far as your comments on the development suites... first off, your attitude is juvenile and elitist. You probably still use VI or something. Development suits are there to help increase productivity... if you want to spend 2 hours doing what I can do in 2 minutes, so beit, but don't accuse me of being inexperienced. Second, you suggest that the dev suite creates black-box style code. At least in the case of VS.NET (or, rather, the .NET Framework and wsdl.exe), that's simply not true. It's a time saving tool only, and it creates functionality which can be both extended and manipulated at will. For the *first* time, with .NET, I can write my business logic or service, and then, almost as an after thought, expose it as a fully functional XML Web Service. This ease and speed of development is exactly what makes it a great technology. Everything that XML Web Services does was possible with older technology, but it was neither practical nor, in many cases, feasible. Now it is, and that's why .NET (and other tools, like Web Sphere) rocks. |
| #12 By 5444 (208.180.245.184) at 3/20/2002 3:20:42 AM |
|
RMD,
A much better way to explain it. (since MS basically invented SOAP, although it has evolved since the paper that introduced it to the w3. Is that SOAP a transport protocol. along with UDDI, DISCO, WSDL, provide the same Service as CORBA and ActiveX(com, com+) in an open standard format that is platform independant. Now the Issue is exposeing the Business logic in secure formats to allow for Interoperbility in B2B enviroments. Why should I have to worry if it is Active X (com, com+) Corba, Orb, or what ever underlying technology it is. I just need a function to do something. XML is the data, WSDL is the description of the functionality that is provided. el |
| #13 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/20/2002 7:07:37 AM |
|
#27 - You're correct, that was a better (and not as long winded) way of explaining it. :-)
#28 - Microsoft did indeed invent SOAP... here are some resources: Microsoft actually had the SOAP spec done in 1998, and didn't ship it because of "Microsoft politics..." http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/04/04/soap.html "Microsoft invented Soap to provide an easier means for the Com platform to interoperate with other, non-Com platforms," said Gary Barnett, director of research at Ovum." - http://www.vnunet.com/News/1102903 |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/20/2002 10:11:38 AM |
|
#18 - Please don't make me laugh.
#30 - The first commercial implementation of XML-RPC was in 1998. Go read scripting.com and you'll hear more than you want to know about this. I haven't yet decided if Dave Winer is a true innovator, or the next PT Barnum. He sure does an awful lot of self promotion, but he also seems to have some good ideas. |
| #15 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 3/20/2002 12:03:06 PM |
|
RMD you get a gold star for the day :)
Well said. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 318 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:32:42 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
