Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0 177
An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article about Microsoft's move to rename WinFX to .Net Framework 3.0. Microsoft has also announced the availability of the beta version of the MSDN Wiki, the company's first step toward allowing customers to contribute to Microsoft's developer documentation. From the article: "It is purely a branding change, company officials said. The gist of the issue is that Microsoft has two successful developer brands in WinFX and .Net, and the company has seen 320,000 downloads of WinFX -- and 700 signed GoLive licenses -- since the December Community Technology Preview, and more than 35 million downloads of the .Net Framework since the November launch. "
Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:1, Insightful)
And now
Given that they're the most powerful platform vendor in the world, with the ability to force adoption of virtually any programming environment, language or library that they choose, Microsoft sure does seem to act desperate sometimes.
Not News (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article: "Microsoft has decided to avoid any confusion in the naming scheme for its core developer technology [...]"
Before my brain shuts down in order to protect itself and I start drooling on myself, I should say that it's one thing for tech journalists to be clueless and incoherent; it's another entirely for them to report something that's exactly the opposite of what's happening just because it's in the corporate press release.
Cool Aid (Score:1, Insightful)
".NET Framework has becomes the most successful developer platform in the world."
I'm going to put down my cup of coffee, pick up the cool-aid and jump right on it! Just another Microsoft developer blogger trying to market for them. And they wonder why only current customers listen.
On a related note, I thought WinFX was originally just the replacement for WinForms, the original
S.O.P. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it's true that noone really used it for a long time, partly because it was only implemented by IE. It's also true that you can simulate asynchronous requests using hidden frames (something my company did back in 99), but that also never really took off (and probably won't now).
I think it's fair to say that MS were ahead of everyone else. I think it's also fair to say that they completely squandered their lead, sitting on a technology that they didn't have the vision to use to the full.
More confusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only this, but
Now they're bringing this same confusion to WinFX? WinFX used to be the three pillars to the new Windows API to be included in Vista, encompassing Avalon (presentation layer), Indigo (communications layer), and WinFS (metadata database for the filesystem). Then some of these pillars were dropped, and now apparently according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] there are four pillars. I'm not sure if these will still be available [about.com] for Windows XP, and where Windows 2000 stands. Not only that, but will Mono have to re-implement major parts of Windows just to be
Anyway, all this makes me wonder, what is MS trying to accomplish with this moving-target definition of WinFX and
Vista? (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess when your product isn't good enough, you need other ways to get it sold.
Re:Cool Aid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that his .sig says "Yes, I do work for Microsoft" and has done for ages, and also that his comments are generally informed and relevant, I'm not sure how you can call him a shill. :-)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vista? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or Microsoft could just give away their product for free, like other vendors who make products that aren't "good enough" to sell to the public.
Not always a bad idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
But you know what? Dependencies aren't always bad. My system, like most, comes bundled with glibc. And, in a proprietary world, a virtual machine (compile once, run anywhere) makes a lot of sense, especially if you can make it as common on a Windows system as glibc is in the Unix world.
I like the idea of
Sucks for Java, but I don't like Java much right now.
So, technologically, bundling is the right thing here. But MS isn't a technology company, so this is probably motivated at least partly by their ongoing war against Java.