| 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 |
 |
Report: MS To Push Silverlight Via Redesigned Microsoft.com | |
|
||
| Time: 13:41 EST/18:41 GMT | News Source: WinBeta | Posted By: Michael Dragone | ||
|
It looks like Microsoft is getting desperate about the dismal rates of Silverlight adoption by consumers and developers since its release earlier this year. According to NeoSmart Technologies, Microsoft is preparing a fully Silverlight-powered redesign of their website, doing away with most HTML pages entirely. With over 60 million unique users visiting Microsoft.com a month, Microsoft's last-ditch effort might be what it takes to breathe some life back into Silverlight. The article notes: 'At the moment, very few non-Microsoft-owned sites are using Silverlight at all; let alone for the entire UI.' | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 343 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:34:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 1/3/2008 2:11:41 PM |
| Uh... who said Microsoft really expected a Silverlight revolution on the web? Especially with 2.0 (aka 1.1) on the horizon? |
| #2 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at 1/3/2008 3:25:22 PM |
| I agree. I don't think MS is worried about the silverlight uptake at all. This is a longterm investment, and they stated that well in advance. More FUD. |
| #3 By 94647 (76.8.64.170) at 1/3/2008 4:20:43 PM |
| In recent interview Bill Gates was asked why Microsoft is adding another standard to web. He replied that it won't harm end user to have Flash and Silverlight players along on single box... And that Adobe guys need some competition. Dunno about the former, but I can't disagree with the later one, considering things like complete lack of hardware acceleration for Flash. |
| #4 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 1/3/2008 8:53:47 PM |
|
funny fud
"desperate" "dismal" good laugh... |
| #5 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at 1/3/2008 10:26:18 PM |
|
Well, since Microsoft made it, they might as well use it themselves, and use their own web site as a showcase for it. That's no less than Adobe would do / has done with Flash and Shockwave. Why have a competing web standard if you aren't going to use it and showcase it yourself.
No matter what the technology is, I'd be suspicious of it if the company that created it didn't use it themselves somehow. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 10:38:38 AM |
| #5: The distinction is that I can go to the Adobe site and do everything without having to have Flash installed. The summary makes it look like MS is going to design their entire site around Silverlight so that it's mandatory that you have it installed. |
| #7 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 11:36:22 AM |
| #6: Yeah, that is an important distinction. Good point. I doubt, based on the article, that there will be a choice between the Silverlight version of the site and the HTML version. |
| #8 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at 1/4/2008 12:09:42 PM |
|
Slashdot (King of the Asshats) is the "source" of the story.
Ha ha ha. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 12:37:07 PM |
| #8: The story source is Neosmart, not Slashdot. Geez, you can't even manage "shoot the messenger" without screwing it up. |
| #10 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at 1/4/2008 1:16:34 PM |
|
Moron.
The quote at the top of this page comes from Slashdot, not Neosmart or Winbeta. Follow the links Asshat. "Slashdot got suckered and picked up a story by NeoSmart which was able to “exclusively reveal that Microsoft’s website is in the middle of a redesign that will feature a fully Silverlight-powered interface - doing away with HTML and everything else.” The problem, it’s all BS." http://blogs.zdnet.com/Stewart/?p=691 This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Monday, January 07, 2008 at 18:19. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 1:29:34 PM |
| #10: Yes, the quote at the top does come from Slashdot. What does that have to do with your incorrect statement that the story source is Slashdot, when it plainly isn't? |
| #12 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 1:47:37 PM |
|
NotParkerToo: Slashdot (King of the Asshats) is the "source" of the story.
For the link-following-challenged (NotParkerToo), here is the chain: The heading links to WinBeta, which is reporting on a posting on Slashdot, which links to the article on NeoSmart. It is easy to follow the links to the story. The full article is at: http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/redesigned-microsoft-website-to-use-silverlight/ Clearly, Slashdot is the source of the quoted text, but NeoSmart is the source of the article. And only a moron like NPT would put source in quotes. Of course, since he can't read or follow links, this is not a big surprise. |
| #13 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 1/4/2008 7:55:34 PM |
| tangent anyone? |
| #14 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at 1/4/2008 8:28:39 PM |
| #13: No thanks. Nice try anyway, though. |
| #15 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at 1/5/2008 9:17:29 AM |
|
No choice Mystic?
From what I read: "We do not have any evidence that all of Microsoft.com is being redesigned to take advantage of Silverlight, just large portions of it. Sorry for any confusion" It sounds like your hypothesis may be incorrect. |
| #16 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at 1/5/2008 10:36:14 AM |
|
#15:
What I meant is that based on what I read, there would be no choice between using Silverlight or not using it. If you access Microsoft.com, large portions of it would be using Silverlight, replacing the HTML versions of those pages. Period. If we had a choice between using the Silverlight version oft he site and the HTML version of the site, and both were maintained to give equivalent functionality, and users could choose between which version suited them better, then I would be wrong. From the article: Large portions Microsoft's website are in the middle of a redesign that will feature a fully Silverlight-powered interface - doing away with HTML and everything else. This indicates to me that the site will be Silverlight powered, and thus Silverlight will need to be installed on your browser in order to access it. Sounds like lack of choice to me. Yes, some minor percentage of the site might remain unchanged, but for all intents and purposes, the site will be predominantly Silverlight, and Silverlight only. This, of course, is completely based on what the article says. Reality may turn out to be different. Who knows at this point, other than those actually working on the project at Microsoft. I sincerely hope I am wrong. |
| #17 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at 1/5/2008 12:27:34 PM |
|
"Clearly, Slashdot is the source of the quoted text,"
Yes it is Asshat. |
| #18 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at 1/5/2008 6:11:46 PM |
|
"Slashdot (King of the Asshats) is the source of the story"
This is what you originally said, ass monkey. Nice try at diverting attention from your own stupidity, but no one is buying it. Go back to entertaining your inflate-a-date, and stop bothering the adults. We're trying to have a grown up conversation here. |
| #19 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 1/5/2008 11:40:14 PM |
|
#18: You kill me. You talk about a grown up discussion while in the same breath hurling juvenile insults.
Once again, you, Latch and Parker have managed to hijack another thread. |
| #20 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at 1/6/2008 9:03:32 AM |
| "We do not have any evidence that all of Microsoft.com is being redesigned to take advantage of Silverlight, just large portions of it. Sorry for any confusion" |
| #21 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at 1/6/2008 4:46:29 PM |
|
#20: You've quoted that before. Yes, it indicates that large portions of Microsoft.com will be be converted to Silverlight. But not all of it. But it clearly states that a large portion of it will be. How does this change anything about what I said? It is valid whether they convert 100% of the site, or merely 80% of it. So, if they convert everything but the TechNet portion of the site, then no one should have any problems with this?
For the record, I originally stated that I didn't have a problem with them using their own site as a showcase for it. It would be nice if there was non-Silverlight versions of the portions that are converted, for those who are not able to access a Silverlight plugin, but I have it installed under Firefox and IE, so I wouldn't be affected either way. |
| #22 By 37047 (99.241.37.218) at 1/6/2008 4:47:38 PM |
| #19: Another useless post by Parkkker's loyal protector. |
| #23 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 1/6/2008 9:15:23 PM |
| #22: That makes sense! |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/7/2008 9:31:24 AM |
| #23: Don't dump on me. Parkkker ruined the thread, as usual. |
| #25 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at 1/7/2008 5:14:38 PM |
|
It's you that is interpreting "large" as greater than 50%. Microsoft.com is one of the largest sites on the web today. Even if they did 20% of the site in silverlight, that could be interpreted as "a large portion".
Here nor there, it doesn't matter to me. I would applaud them for going all silverlight if they chose such a route. It's their business, their apps, their site. As long as they make the transition as painless as possible for users looking to their domains for assistance, it's A-OK with me. This post was edited by AWBrian on Monday, January 07, 2008 at 17:14. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 343 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:34:21 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
