MS To Push Silverlight Via Redesigned Microsoft.com

Marilyn M. writes "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.'"

Firefox...

[binaryspiral (784263)]

If it doesn't work in Firefox, I'm not interested.

Oh wait... it does. Just kidding - still not interested.

Re:Firefox...

[canuck57 (662392)]

If it doesn't work in Firefox, I'm not interested.

I will add, if it does not work with Firefox/Linux, not interested.

Re:Firefox...

[SerpentMage (13390)]

Hmmm... Ok so tell me how often are you going to be visiting the Microsoft website if you happen to be a Linux and Firefox user?

Probably 0....

So in other words they don't care about your situation because most likely you are not going to visit it. Makes completely logical sense actually.

Not that I think their strategy is great...

Re:Firefox...

[mhall119 (1035984)]

Ok so tell me how often are you going to be visiting the Microsoft website if you happen to be a Linux and Firefox user?

Whenever a Windows-using acquaintance hoses their box and I have to boot a LiveCD to fix it.

Re:Firefox...

[Stamen (745223)]

I gave Microsoft a chance in 1995, then I gave them a chance in 98, 99, and 2001, and 2003. I gave them a chance with Webclasses, with ActiveX, with Fox Pro, with Visual J, with DNA, with vbscript, with jscript, with J#, with VB. I gave them a chance with IE, then again with IE, then again.

I'm sure if I just give them this one more chance, they'll be fine, just this last chance, this is going to be the one that works out... I know it, I just know it.

Re:Firefox...

[MojoStan (776183)]

If it doesn't work in Firefox, I'm not interested.

I will add, if it does not work with Firefox/Linux, not interested.

Will you be interested when it does work with Linux, which it's supposed to do "at the beginning of 2008" [novell.com]?

For those interested in Linux/Silverlight info, the Linux version is called "Moonlight" [novell.com] and is being developed by Novell with Microsoft's help.

Opera...

[ShatteredArm (1123533)]

...Does not work with Opera.

Not interested.

Earlier this year?

[deckardt (989092)]

MS is giving up after 3 days? wow!

I'm surprised

[Chabil Ha' (875116)]

that they haven't made it one if its 'critical updates' or even the proverbial forced 'back door' updates that no one knows about until you suddenly find it on your machine. The idea of Silverlight seems pretty cool since I'm a .Net junky myself, but still like the ubiquity and semi-platform independence of Flash.

Re:I'm surprised

[glop (181086)]

Hi,

The semi platform independence of Flash is actually pretty good. It's available on the Nokia N810 which runs Linux and has an ARM CPU. Not exactly a PC-like device.
And that's without mentioning the open source implementations.

So, Microsoft, please provide a very compatible, well supported implementation of Silverlight on the Nokia N810 and a couple of other similar devices and we will consider it. If not, why bother? Flash is ubiquitous, works well and is becoming less proprietary every year if I believe the news.

News flash!

[east coast (590680)]

Company tries to spur adoption of their technology by actually using it themselves! The ultimate act of desperation!

Film at 11.

Seriously? Wouldn't it be a bit more suspect if the *didn't* use it?

Re:News flash!

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

Seriously? Wouldn't it be a bit more suspect if the *didn't* use it?

It's not about them using it themselves.

It's about them leveraging an existing product to force the adoption of a new product.

Re:News flash!

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

You mean like pretty much every other company either does or tries to do?

This [adobe.com] site doesn't force me to use Flash.

Re:News flash!

[Entropius (188861)]

Not all companies.

I have a Panasonic camera. They could have developed a proprietary memory format like Sony did, but it uses plain old cheap SD cards.

They could have made the lens threads a weird size so they could sell their own teleconverters and filters, but it's plain old 55mm, and people have quite happily screwed Olympus, Nikon, Minolta, etc. stuff onto them.

Some companies do just make useful stuff and sell it, but they're not the ones that make the news as often, since they mostly stay out of the spotlight and just sit around making stuff and money.

In the computer world, Logitech is sort of like this. They've not tried to integrate their speakers with their mice (Microsoft would find a way to do this!), and instead just try to make useful products that stand on their own merit.

Re:News flash!

[Locutus (9039)]

ok, I'll bite. Did you see that part about them coding their webpages( microsoft.com ) in silverlight with no HTML? Could that not be another case where if you need to go to their site for support or information, you must now install sliverlight to view that pages? They have a monopoly and were convicted of abusing that monopoly along with getting taken to court of these kinds of issues dozens of times. It is not just a case of them eating their own dog-food, it sounds like they are forcing their dog-shit into the hands of their customers for the benefit of their monopoly. Flash is a threat to them because not only is it installed on over 90% of OEM installed Windows based computers, Adobe has added alot of capabilities to it for rich media access.

BTW, this will only effect me when someone points out something stupid Microsoft did on their sight and I get to check it out for a good laugh. Those who are Windows users are mostly clueless of how they are being manipulated and attempts to open their eyes regarding this is pretty useless. But I still try every now and then. ;-/

LoB

MSDN Library

[ckaminski (82854)]

It's bad enough MSDN Library still doesn't work properly with Firefox after three years of using it. It took until last year for Microsoft.com to work even remotely well in a non-IE browser... I can only imagine how many people will stop using microsoft.com altogether.

If it wasn't required to visit windowsupdate.com, it would be the nail in IE's coffin.

WARNING: Incredibly Morose Statement Following

[mdm-adph (1030332)]

So... let's be realistic, how long before everyone's using this instead of Flash? My dib's on three years.

Silver Light is actually pretty damn cool

[RingDev (879105)]

TBH though, I am a .Net developer, so I may have a bit of bias. But the power and ease of development that Silver Light gives you is very impressive. It's not the right tool for every job, but for multi-media intensive, widely distributed apps, from the tools I've seen, it definitely has some great advantages.

-Rick

The real value of Silverlight

[ShatteredArm (1123533)]

All trolling and MS-hating aside, Silverlight is not meant for the World Wide Web. Rather, it is, like many other Microsoft products (SharePoint, PerformancePoint, BizTalk, etc) for the corporate intranet. The corporate IT department can simply force the software onto everybody's computer, and the developers can easily develop a *real* UI without having to fumble around with trying to make HTML behave like Windows Forms.

Re:Silver Light is actually pretty damn cool

[gbjbaanb (229885)]

The functionality that having the entire .Net framework at the tips of your fingers while developing is a godsend.

Hi, to get the best user experience from this product, you need to install the .NET runtime v1.1, the .NET Runtime v2.0, the .NET runtime v3.0, the .NET runtime v3.5, the .NET runtime service pack 1, the .NET runtime v2 service pack 1, the .NET runtime v3.0 service pack 1, the .NET 3.5 recommended update and the .NET runtime v1.1. security update.

I know, I've just been doing that on the new server, getting it ready... 300 MB of download and 3 reboots (that's no counting the rest of the windows updates I needed to get).

Note that the runtimes are optional components in WU, so many of your potential customers will not have the latest and greatest versions (which, naturally, will be required) including those customers running Vista.

History repeating

[Bogtha (906264)]

I remember when Netscape introduced frames, they changed the netscape.com website to use them. It lasted a few months, then they realised how silly they were and changed their website back.

Silverlight may be good for embedded applets and for applications, but it's ludicrous to use it for an entire website. I expect that Microsoft will shortly figure this out.

Re:History repeating

[Niten (201835)]

At that point you can't even call it a website any more; it's just a graphical .NET application that happens to be delivered over HTTP.

And yes, the same is absolutely true for pure-Flash websites, too. But this is made slightly less onerous because Adobe provides versions of the Flash plugin for Linux and OS X that are ostensibly on par with the Windows version, and Adobe doesn't lock you into a single platform for developing Flash apps -- unlike Microsoft, Adobe's end game is not to create a sea of de-facto "standard" applications for which the company's own operating system is the best, or only, choice.

Keeps crashing. I have pulled it.

[hughk (248126)]

I have a new DELL laptop with XP SP2 on it (no way was I going to get Vista on it). Silverlight crashes both in Firefox and in IE7, even on a system that is has almost no other apps. I have pulled silverlight as something that may work someday, but at the moment is a pile of donkey poo.

Bullet Point Three

[MBCook (132727)]

The Silverlight part of the interface is almost wholly unnecessary. It's really nice to use, it's smooth, it's easy, and it's beautiful - but it's nothing that requires a RIA in the first place. Microsoft could have easily implemented the same user experience (give or take) with HTML + JavaScript/AJAX; with a lot less effort and greater compatibility.

That bit, the third numbered bullet, is what matters. They aren't doing something special, they are just forcing their technology on others because they can. Now I'm kind of interested in seeing what happens, because frankly I think MS's current site is a mess (I can never find what I'm looking for). But if they are going to push something like this they should go all out and demonstrate what it can do, not just use it in place of JavaScript (which they tried to replace with VBScript and failed) and AJAX (which they invented, to a degree).

search engine issues?

[Brit_in_the_USA (936704)]

I'm guessing only mircrsofts search engine will be able to index pages buried on the revised microsoft.com site until other search engines add silver-light navigation to their crawlers?

I don't know about anyone else but I use Google to find KB articles.

Desperate?

[eebra82 (907996)]

It looks like Microsoft is getting desperate about the dismal rates of Silverlight adoption by consumers and developers since its release earlier this year. [..] With over 60 million unique users visiting Microsoft.com a month [..]

How is that a desperate move? It would be extremely stupid of Microsoft if they didn't change it to Silverlight, considering the fact that many of their pages currently use Flash. And if they have 60 million unique hits - why not? Are we calling Adobe desperate for using Flash on their site?

Enough is enough.

[RightSaidFred99 (874576)]

I scanned the replies to this, nobody has pointed out that the article is a fabrication aka lie. Microsoft is not redesigning Microsoft.com to use Silverlight. The idea is preposterous if you think about it for just a minute. Imagine the work involved in changing a site that has developed over more than a decade entirely to use Silverlight.

In fact, Microsoft is only changing their download area to use Silverlight. In other words, surprise surprise - a kdawson article that is simply false. It's amazing, I know.

Breeze to Program

[WED Fan (911325)]

The nice thing about Silverlight is that it is a breeze to program and work with.

I think, once the initial knee-jerk anti-MS crud is past, people won't mind. Just like any web/presentation technology, it has it's pros and cons. But look, to work with Silverlight, to create Silverlight, you don't need an expensive suite of tools.

Re:Breeze to Program

[plague3106 (71849)]

As a developer, I'm waiting for Silverlight 2.0 so that I can use .Net languages instead of that heap of crap which is Javascript.

Re:Breeze to Program

[devjj (956776)]

As a developer, I'm waiting for an open-source solution, so that I'm not restricted to .NET languages, a single platform to develop on, etc.

Re:Breeze to Program

[Pennidren (1211474)]

I got the intent of your remark, but in an effort to fully disclose:

Silverlight isn't open source, but you are not restricted to .NET languages; you can use any of 4 scripting languages [wikipedia.org]. In fact Silverlight 1.0 (which the post you replied to is bemoaning) is actually more restricted than 2.0 because it is not able to use .NET languages. Don't complain about options!

Also, although still not open source, the source code for .NET framework libraries will be available [asp.net].

And you are not limited to a single platform to develop on although it is currently difficult to do so on a platform other than Windows :)
And Silverlight 2.0 will be available on Mac (and, via third party, Linux).

Re:Breeze to Program

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Oh! Oh! I have! I have!

It's a piece of crap. [slashdot.org]

When I finally got it up and running, I had as many problems with the API set as I did with the documentation. Mono is junk that gives people a false impression that .NET is portable. Nothing could be further from the truth. At best, it's an alternative development environment for Linux/Unix that just happens to be based on the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 standards.

Re:bullshit

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

The fact that support .NET as part of Mono is hard and ongoing doesn't make Mono a "piece of crap".

Agreed. Mono is a piece of crap on its own merits. I apologize if I gave any other impression.

Mono doesn't work well on OS X because Apple is playing their own games with deliberate incompatibilities.

Your argument of deliberate X11 incompatibilities is nice (though difficult to accept at face value), but ignores the fact that 90% of my rant centered around the craptactular development environment that is shipped as "Mono". It's decidedly developer-unfriendly, and using it on a Mac was not the cause of that.

On a system where Java is installed, things are easy to build and run. I can run "ant all" and everything magically compiles. I can look at the documentation and understand what every class and method does. If it runs on one system, I can expect it to run on the rest. Dependencies are clearly defined and easy to resolve. (And explicitly clear when tied to a given OS due to JNI dependencies.)

None of that describes Mono. Mono is a piece of crap that simply perpetuates a poor state of dependency hell, while wrapping your core software in a semi-portable bytecode that provides no real-world advantage in portability.

Re:Breeze to Program

[dvice_null (981029)]

Mono? Isn't that the UNFINISHED implementation of Microsoft's current .net version (I'm saying current, because at some point they will extend it a little more and Mono will lack behind.)? But I have a question to you. Have you ever heard of .net applications using Windows DLLs? Well I have as several of them do and because of that, they won't work on Linux.

Re:Breeze to Program

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

I very rarely hear people call Javascript a heap of crap who have actually used and understood it.

If you don't know who Douglas Crockford is, there's a very good chance you have no idea what Javascript can be.

Re:Breeze to Program

[somersault (912633)]

Ah - so the rumours about it having poor floating point compatibility were true?

Just in case there was any doubt...

[Foerstner (931398)]

...that .Net was a clone of Java.

Re:Breeze to Program

[plague3106 (71849)]

Maybe you should, you know, check out a techonology before you bash it. Silverlight 2.0 will still be in a sandbox. I'm not even sure there will be an OPTION to allow access to local files.. But please, bash on!

Re:Breeze to Program

[Reapman (740286)]

Last I checked all you need is notepad, vim, or emacs to build a rather snazzy CSS / HTML based site with fancy scripts if you want. I haven't worked with Silverlight but I have heard from others it is easy to work with, so it does have that. But as someone who rather likes not being tied to any 1 OS, be it OSX, Windows, or *nix, I'll stick with the truely open HTML option (ya I know Silverlight runs on most but that's more due to the grace of Microsoft than anything, and requires special libraries like Mono I think if your not running a main OS)

The thing is this ISNT just another web technology, this is a MICROSOFT technology, which historically has always ment you need to run a Microsoft Enironment to get the benefit out of it. Microsofts not evil, but they're not exactlly open either.

MS already dropping support for platforms

[smurfsurf (892933)]

Microsoft dropped support for PPC Macs. I see this as a good hint on what commitment to expect from them regarding future platform independence and support.

Re:Breeze to Program

[BasharTeg (71923)]

This is your big misunderstanding. What makes Mono a "systemwide library system" and Flash just a library? Do they go in different folders? Is installing Adobe Flash not "modifying your system"?

Silverlight works with Firefox, Safari, and IE.

You know the spec for HTML? Which one? Transitional HTML 4.01? Strict HTML 4.01? XHTML? I highly doubt you actually *know* the spec for HTML. What you know is how to write HTML that works. Other people know how to write Silverlight code that works. Your arguments for Microsoft cutting support for Linux don't make any sense. Mono is an open source GPLed project, which happens to have some Microsoft backing and support due to their own desire to see Silverlight succeed and the agreement they have with Novell who is backing Mono. However, it's still an open source GPL project. Saying "what if Microsoft changes everything" doesn't make sense. You could make the same argument against Samba (prior to the recent release of the SMB documentation after many years of reverse engineering).

The fact is, once Moonlight is up and rolling, there's no need for Microsoft's support to continue keeping it up to date. If they add some new function blah(x,y) they have to document that function in order for Silverlight users to actually make use of it, which means writing your own version of blah(x,y) from scratch wouldn't be that big of a deal. Open source projects like Samba have been doing this for years with NO documentation.

Considering Microsoft's very early support for multiple platforms and for an open source implementation, and the years it took to even get a crappy version of Adobe Flash for Linux out of Adobe, it's really funny that you consider Flash the lesser of two evils.

It's also really funny that you're so hot on the standards body for HTML and how great it is to have one true standard, when the whole HTML "standard(s)" and all of the commercial implementations of it are in shambles. No disrespect to the W3C community, but right now the par for a good HTML rendering browser is "whatever is better than Microsoft's support". We have 3 rolling standards, of which there is no actual implementation of 100% of the standard. I'm pretty sure Flash renders 100% compatible Flash, and Silverlight renders 100% compatible Silverlight. If you look at the same HTML on Windows and Mac, you'll get different output on many web pages, but if you look at Silverlight on Windows and Mac, you'll get the same output.

With HTML you do have to worry about what kindness an organization provides, because you have to worry about how much of your HTML "standard" (and which one) they choose to support, and how much of it they choose to support. You're just as dependent on browser implementations as Silverlight and Flash people are on their plugins. There's no difference anywhere except in your mind.

Oh, and both Silverlight and Flash are filing to become standardized specifications under standards bodies. Look at .NET, it's an open standard for anyone to implement. Silverlight will be the same. So again, where is this dependency on Microsoft's kindness again? They're doing everything that everyone demands of them: support multiple platforms, have an open specification, submit your spec for standardization, and help open source implementations of your spec get developed. And yet still there are people like this who knock their every move. Here's a hint: If you want Microsoft to change their behavior, don't give them a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario and don't be a hypocrite by being willing to be owned by Adobe but not by Microsoft. In my opinion Adobe has shown just as bad of behavior, and they clearly have a monopoly in several markets as well.

Re:Breeze to Program

[ivan256 (17499)]

s/Silverlight/Flex 2.0/g

Except that basically everybody has a flash player running already, there are tons and tons more resources and libraries available to developers, and it works on every significant platform.... There are even open source players.

Flex/AS3 development is pretty damned easy. How much easier can Silverlight possibly be to justify deploying to a platform with significantly lower market penetration?

Re:Breeze to Program

[dave1791 (315728)]

In 1995, everyone was running Netscape.

Microsoft's plan is to replace Flash as the Flashy web UI of choice. As a UI developer, I am ambivalent. I fail to see how being in Adobe's pocket is any better or worse than being in Microsoft's. Actually, I prefer Silverlight as it does not require that hideously expensive Flex dev environment.

Re:Breeze to Program

[encoderer (1060616)]

How about the fact that it's language agnostic? You're a C++ developer? It's a lot more comfortable to use C++.Net than it is to use ActionScript. Same for Java Developers, Python Developers, etc, ad infinitum..

Or how about the fact that the .Net Framework is the largest library ever shipped? There is surely more "library code" available for, say, Java and Perl, but the .Net libraries share a common format, style, and organization.

Or how about the fact that your .Net code for your Silverlight application is going to be obviously OO (since .Net is an OO framework). That allows you to easily share/reuse code between Silverlight, ASP.Net, and JIT'd GUI apps.

Or how about the fact that you can mix multiple languages in a silverlight project (like ALL .Net projects)? You find useful code in C#.net but you're programming in Visual C++.Net? No problem, just load it in.

Or how about an entire eco-system of tools and generators and add-ons for Visual Studio and the framework?

Of course, with flash, you get...

well...

None of that.

Re:Breeze to Program

[diegocgteleline.es (653730)]

I also think Silverlight is not a bad TECHNICAL solution. That's not the problem. The problem is that it's Yet Another Example of Microsoft trying to control something to avoid people from competing with Windows.

Re:Breeze to Program

[nahdude812 (88157)]

Flex is substantially easier to work with, had a ubiquitous install base, and transports easily to full desktop applications via Apollo.

We went to a full-day demo on Silverlight, given by a Microsoft developer. What they did in about 500 lines of Silverlight code was a pretty nice picture slideshow with smooth image transitions. What we did in about 500 lines of Flex was equivalent, but supported images of any size, allowed you to zoom in, supported a film strip mode, and carousel mode, as well as the standard fade-in, fade-out image transitions. Ours also is able to attach to ANY other language that is capable of delivering web services in a wide variety of formats (XMLRPC, SOAP, WSDL, flat XML, etc), and it only requires 1 line of code to change (or a switch statement if we wanted to support them all at once). Ours is more featureful, easier to read, understand, and maintain than the very best that Microsoft could produce in the same amount of code. It also performs better.

Seriously, I have seen both of these things in action, Silverlight is a long, LONG way away from being able to compete with Flex on both an install base perspective as well as an ease-of-development perspective. There is a reason people aren't adopting Silverlight, and install base is only a small part of it (though of course it itself is significant).

Microsoft is doing their usual bang-up job of supporting the minimal features to look competitive, then cramming it down people's throats until they forget there are better options out there. And well they should, they should be scared silly. Flex is poised to overthrow the desktop monopoly in a way that AJAX and Google Apps can't (wouldn't be surprised to see some Google apps on Flex in the future). To boot, you can convert these browser-based apps to offline desktop apps with about 30 minutes of work, and an Apollo redistributable.

Nothing has been this big of a threat to the desktop monopoly since Java. And Adobe has the gumption, power, and pocketbook to follow through. This is the source of the recent interest in Flash 9 on Linux. They don't care whether Linux users can view pretty animations, they care whether Linux users accept Flex, and being given access to Flex is the first step toward acceptance. They are also courting the open source community more and more (notice that the Flash Remoting spec was recently opened, which is actually a pretty big deal since it enables features that only they are able to deliver today), realizing I think that a lot of these Linux geeks are also IT decision makers.

Adobe is working on a version of Photoshop for the web, which from what I understand will be a combination of HTML/Ajax, Flex, and server-side processing. They are bringing levels of desktop functionality to the browser never before possible, and it has Microsoft bricking in their pants.

Over the coming months, expect to see Microsoft cramming Silverlight down your and anyone else's throat as rigorously as they are able to. It will be hidden in Windows Update files, it will be required to do various things on the Microsoft website, it will be bundled with software. They will make many applications in Silverlight which are better suited to other existing technologies (for example, the Microsoft website!!), because they want to make it as mandatory as they can without hitting anti-trust legislation.

Re:Wow

[diodeus (96408)]

How to Google-proof your site in one easy step!

Re:They're already spamming us

[Al Dimond (792444)]

I'll tell you how Silverlight is Not Great, and I've never used it in the slightest. And it's not because it's by Microsoft, or because it's not free.

It's Not Great for the same reason Flash is Not Great: it almost always results in a worse user interface than using normal /x?html/.

For the developer the site is The Thing. It's important that the site has clean code, looks cool, and is easy to maintain. Maybe Silverlight makes that possible.

For the user the site is likely just one stop on a journey tied together by a web search. It's important that the site behaves similarly to all others in certain respects: that the browser's navigation facilities work, that the browser's text search works, that input behavior for these are the same as on all other pages (keeping in mind that key bindings, mouse bindings, context menus, etc. vary from browser to browser and user to user). Flash breaks this, and if Silverlight doesn't do the same I'll be shocked.

For the developer it's tempting to think the site is a book to be read from start to finish. But users are more likely to look in the index, tear out a few pages, and glue them into collages of their own creation. The developer can use the introductory chapters to lay out unusual notational conventions that will apply throughout the text but the user, not having read from the beginning, is only confused to see them used in the middle. If you're tempted to cry and bitch about this as a developer, get over yourself: users have more important things to do in life than figure out this super cool new interface to your web site.

A big part of the reason the web took off is that its limited facilities for UI design forced sites to mostly follow the same conventions. If you want to do something better, more complicated, something that people have to learn, then write a damn desktop app.

(Yes, there are useful and good things that can be done by embedding Flash/Java in web pages. Nifty videos and games, no-install VNC and ssh clients... as long as they stay self-contained and aren't part of the page's navigation or textual information presentation, knock yourself out).

Re:Let's make MS Help EVEN Worse

[ShatteredArm (1123533)]

You should have seen how badly the member website for Microsoft Certified Professionals crapped out when I tried getting in. The error message actually displayed a Guid.

And yes, I'm completely aware of the irony.

Re:WTF is Silverlight?

[east coast (590680)]

Yeah, they should use a sensible name with a product description like iPod, Gnome and Dreamweaver.

Oh, wait...