| 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 to reinstate Java in Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 14:38 EST/19:38 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
In an about-face, Microsoft said Tuesday that it will reinstate the ability to run Java programs in Windows XP. Microsoft said it would include its own Java software in the Service Pack 1 update to Windows XP due late this summer. In the long term, though, the company plans to remove Java from Windows altogether. The reinstatement is a partial victory for Java inventor and Microsoft rival Sun Microsystems, which in the 1990s had hoped people would use the cross-platform language to write programs capable of running on any computer, regardless of the operating system used by the machine. <%=GetPoll(30)%> | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:35:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/18/2002 2:55:47 PM |
|
Did anybody notice it was missing, besides Sun?
|
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 3:06:19 PM |
| macross, that reverse argument doesn't work because ... guess what? you CAN UNinstall it. |
| #3 By 2332 (165.247.12.242) at 6/18/2002 3:16:14 PM |
|
I've never understood what the big deal is. The first time I tried to run a java applet in Windows XP (which was several months after installing XP... most applets have been replaced by Flash these days), XP prompted me to install the JVM... and about 30 seconds later, I was running the applet.
Sun has been using this stupid issue against Microsoft for long enough, and I guess Microsoft finally realized they might as well include the JVM to shut Sun up. |
| #4 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 6/18/2002 3:21:40 PM |
|
I thought bundled software was a bad thing.
It will not shut Sun up. They will try to force MS to add 1.4 instead of 1.1.4. Even though they took MS to court which left MS with only access to 1.1.4. This post was edited by GhostRider on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 15:24. |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 6/18/2002 3:43:15 PM |
|
Ok, the media is really wrong on this. They've got it all backwards.
MS putting MS Java back into Windows is a big problem for Sun. MS Java is Java 1.0 or 1.1 compliant which is very, very old and doesn't incorporate any of the now-common features of Java like collections (yes, it took Sun several versions to realize that people actually iterated over things), and Swing (and then they realized that people actually use GUIs!). This is a major blow and step back for Sun. Now, if you want to run a Java app, more than likely you're going to have to download the Sun JVM anyhow which will only confuse people further. So now Java app developers will probably start writing Java 1.1-compatible classes which really, really suck and will make Java look worse in the long run. This is a quid-pro-quo for Sun and their $1 billion lawsuit -- a middle finger, if you will. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 3:53:22 PM |
|
This isn't maneuvering on Sun's part, it's Microsoft. What the actual intent is is unclear. It does seem clear though that they are not going to provide JVM downloads in the future so they are packaging it now so customers cannot complain that it's not available. If they got customer complaints, then there case wouldn't go so well.
The people who make the "now it's out, now it's in" argument, do you really not get it, or are you just refusing to see the picture? MS lost its Java licensing because they stole and altered the code; Sun would be happy to have it included if they could prevent MS from repeating this. Since MS now has everybody looking over their shoulder and threatening action, Sun wants the latest version because using 1.1.4 is just as effective at stalling Java on Windows as shipping a contaminated version of Java. Sun thinks they have an argument for having it bundled because of the direct acts against Java which have been found to be illegal and which could be remedied by forcing MS to support it. daz, please, anyone seriously developing Java is aware of all of this. It's not going to be a serious blow to Sun. According to RMD all applets are now Flash now anyway, yeah right! And the article doesn't really suggest that it's a blow to MS either. All it does in my mind is point out that something is afoot with respect to MS and its posturing for the civil antitrust case with Sun. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 15:56. |
| #7 By 6859 (12.219.44.45) at 6/18/2002 4:05:14 PM |
|
Didn't SUN sue to get Java out in the first place? Didn't MS comply? Then SUN sues again because Java isn't in...now this.
SUN, you need to (1) get a clue; and (2) go the hell away. This post was edited by Cthulhu on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 16:06. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/18/2002 4:28:58 PM |
|
stubear - correct... Microsoft did not steal and alter Java... They broke the licensing agreement which required compliance to certain rules which were guaranteed to encourage WORA.
In other news... today at work one of our development groups is griping because the application they wrote to work with WebLogic's J2EE implementation won't run on Oracle's J2EE implementation without substantial coding modifications having to do with database conenction pooling. This isn't news for most people, but what is amazing is that Sun has not sued either BEA or Oracle for doing the same thing Microsoft did. Makes you kind of wonder... |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 4:30:54 PM |
|
stu, this is the argument that I'm calling idiotic: that "Microsoft developed some extensions to the language which gave java developers the ability to benefit from the java language while not being tied to its slow execution and performance." A court of law found that they had violated Sun's license by distributing something that wasn't Java under the Java name.
This changes the whole situation and also eliminates the whole seven year restriction. They have seven years to remove the NOT-Java Java. (Get that, people, Java wasn't removed, bastardized Java was removed.) So you have a licensing case which finds that MS must remove code that isn't Java. And now a second case to return TRUE Java to the Windows platform as a penalty--a penalty which couldn't have been sought out in the licensing case. In that case, all they could ask was that the code be removed and that MS stop using the Java name and that they pay damages. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/18/2002 4:32:04 PM |
|
#5 - Actually no the issue was whether you would count it as a fault against Microsoft, and we already know the answer to that.
RMD - Correct. Flash is far more widespread on internet websites than Java client applets. sodajerk - *laugh* Overall - Microsoft made this move to deflect a lawsuit from Sun. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 4:36:32 PM |
|
"Actually no the issue was whether you would count it as a fault against Microsoft, and we already know the answer to that."
Soda, why do you insist that everyone is as hypocritical as you are? Everyone who has said this to you has said they don't count it against MS, but you won't answer the question except to say "I know how everyone else would answer the question." |
| #12 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 6/18/2002 4:42:42 PM |
| OK ActiveWin, I want you guys to come clean. Please admit that sodajerk is an Activewin "employee". He is just here to play devils advocate and say thinks like "MS stole code". Am I right? No one is really that clueless. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 4:48:11 PM |
| #22, I think #5 was raising the question because he agrees with you and I. It's sodablue who refuses to admit his yardstick is a joke, and that we don't all hold MS responsible for everything. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 4:54:25 PM |
|
Ha, Ha! Julien, Bob, Adrien, Matt, et al., pay up!! You owe me!!
Why can't you guys accept that a Microsoft Products user can still hate them without being paid to do it? |
| #15 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 6/18/2002 5:11:10 PM |
|
Sodajerk,
That last thing I would do is use a product that I didn't like, use a service I didn't prefer, or spend my money on a company that I didn't care for. You are aware of the MANY alternatives out there, are you not? |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 5:12:50 PM |
|
Kval, you obviously aren't aware of me or my situation so you can go talk to someone else like they are an idiot.
Have you ever heard of using more than one system? |
| #17 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 6/18/2002 5:20:01 PM |
|
No, I am not aware of your situation. I am not talking to you like an idiot. You shouldn't be so self-conscious or defensive.
Have I heard of using more than one system? Yup. Remember our Photoshop discussion? I do. Remember I also run Macs? Again, if you don't like or care for a product/company/service, don't use it. Use the alternatives. You call me cheap and you say I treat you like an idiot. Why all this pent up anger? I have no intentions of insulting you or belittling you. Can't we all just get along? This post was edited by KvalCom on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 17:20. |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 5:38:05 PM |
|
I don't feel self-conscious or defensive, I'm just setting you straight. I only use MS products at work, and I am unable to affect a change in that. If I could, I would, and I still frequently do work at home that I'd rather do on the Mac.
I'm not angry, I'm just having fun. Your comment was based on a presupposition that was false, best to avoid that. I, more than anyone else, am a topic of conversation at AW--at this point, I would hope people know that I consider myself a Mac user who has to use Windows in a work environment. If people don't know that, they shouldn't bring it up. |
| #19 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 6/18/2002 6:06:25 PM |
| Why don't they just create an interface to the CLR to run Java applets? Sort of like a variation on their Java Language Conversion Assistant. One less runtime to worry about. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 6:09:37 PM |
|
By the way, Kval, I'm not very big on touchyfeely-ness. This is the internet with a lot of stupid people with a lot of stupid opinions (and I'm not saying that's you or anyone else, and I'm not excluding myself from that statement). If I am too abrasive, I apologize but I'm not going to whitewash myself or my opinions to please you. Sometimes people need to be told how stupid their opinions are.
As for defending myself, I will do that. More than anyone here, I am the subject of conversation when I primarily come here for info and substantive debate. Even when other people are clearly in the minority with a bad opinion you will not see 2,3,4, or more people jumping all over them--frequently I am in that position, and I don't cry to anyone, I just fight them off. When are you going to let go of that cheap thing? I thought we all decided you were cheap because you complained about it in support of MS when moments later you claimed you could pay for all your hardware and software with Photoshop. I even told you it was a worse insult from me to be using such specious arguments simply to support MS to the detriment of Adobe. I'd rather be cheap and there's nothing wrong with that. Two-faced? Now that's insulting! |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 6:14:23 PM |
|
#30, throw them out there (the stronger arguments). Half the time I'll go in circles with soda for hours just in hopes that he or someone will hit on the good arguments. Hell, half the time I'll lay something out that's weak just to get someone going with a strong argument. Frequently I know the stronger arguments too, but I'm not going to put them out, nor am I going to stop arguing with the weak arguments. What I can't udnerstand is the people who buy the pathetically weak ones as good and reasonable logic!! But I guess idiocy is epidemic in America.
It's the same reason I come here--to develop a strong argument that can handle being assailed by the opposing view. So... grab yourself an id and speak on up!! This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 18:17. |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 6:32:17 PM |
|
Jagged, That's a good point about where people are from. I guess I should of said idiocy is epidemic in the modern era with a special footnote for America.
I have been watching the Cupa, but that's only from midnight to seven in the morning. I need something to entertain me at work! ;-) |
| #23 By 135 (66.62.202.211) at 6/18/2002 6:53:07 PM |
|
#5/#22 - Ok, I'm holding you to your statement. The next time a bug is reported in Outlook, you cannot claim this is a fault of Microsoft Windows.
|
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/18/2002 7:02:53 PM |
|
soda, you are still trying to weasel out of our points. Are you admitting that everytime you say here is proof Linux is less secure, blah, blah, blah that you were making a fallacious argument? Are you going to stop using these statistics? Are you now admitting that a distributor should not be held responsible for 3rd party software? After all, that was the question which you still won't answer.
Your comment doesn't even make sense: who has ever said an Outlook bug was the fault of Windows? Windows isn't even an entity which could be endowed with responsibility, for Christ's sake! If Outlook has a bug, it's still Microsoft's problem. Boy, this may be a new all time level of stupidity and arrogance--trying to sling together an argument that those who are anti-MS have been blaming an inanimate object just in order to "attempt" to turn the argument on us. Ridiculous! Even you have to know how stupid that last post was! Just answer the question for Christ's sake. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 19:09. |
| #25 By 135 (66.62.202.211) at 6/18/2002 7:48:58 PM |
|
I've always pointed out that if you believe the number of security bulletins relates to the relative security of the software, then Redhat has a much worse record than Microsoft.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, but please don't try to misrepresent the statistics in a way that you regard as fair only because you've choosen parameters intended to inflict a particular bias. I think it's particularly funny how you wish to claim that Redhat is somehow not responsible for the contents they choose to use when creating their distribution. If Microsoft were to ship the Sun JVM with Windows XP, and the Sun JVM turned out to have problems... then Microsoft would have to issue a security bulletin covering the flaw and solution... therefore such a case would be calculated into my statistics. So it's really quite simple, either I count all bulletins, or I don't... If I don't I introduce some level of bias, which is certainly going to be unfair. If you insist, I will establish new rules on which bulletins to count. Perhaps we shall just count bulletins which impact the Kernel... would that make you happy? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:35:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
