Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Drops .NET Name For Next Windows Server
metamatic writes "C|net is reporting that Microsoft is dropping the name "Windows .NET Server" and going back to "Windows Server 200x" (where x is currently expected to be 3). Other products with .NET in the name are also being evaluated for renaming. Analysts are being quoted as saying that slapping .NET on so many Microsoft products has confused people as to what .NET actually means. Or could it be that customers know what it means, but nobody wants to buy it?"
Obiwan Kenobi points out a similar article at ENT News
A net, by defition, is full of holes...
--
http://www.aikiweb.com - AikiWeb Aikido Information
Is it time to start callng it Microsoft bob.NET?
Hammer of Truth
and dotNet the Linux while you are at it.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
I agree with the bit about confusion....
.NET is - and palladium for that matter. I asked here on slashdot what they were and the major differnces between the two.
.NET is and maybe palladium for that matter who would care to expound on the merits of this wonderful technology?
I was very confused (and still am) to exactly what
Someone posted a link to an MS page that supposedly explained what they were - but it still was very vague and didnt help much.
So - anyone out there clear on what
When does Micro$oft plan to drop the $ from their name?
oh wait...
Bill: Nobody wants dotnet!
MS Marketing : Let's rename it and fool the bastards
Ballmer: * grin *
With so much $ in the bank, they will let go of their failures quickly. Even though the tech community still teases them about Bob and crap like that, Microsoft pretend it never happened. Slowly, this will happen with .NET. It was a horrible idea from the start, and has severely backfired. Even though their credibility is ruined, they will move on and bumble around in the dark some more until they catch on to something. In the fable, the boy who cried wolf got three chances. Microsoft seems to get a lot more credit and trust from people than that, so it doesn't really matter that this has flopped on their face. They could have just released an upgrade to VB, but they had to sound like they had a lot more up their sleeves than that. They are casting a NET for a new strategy for the company, and they keep coming back with tin cans.
Although iTools always sounded pretty lame, .Mac as a name never made any sense with the exception of its similarity to the name .Net.
Sound waves should be free!
If only
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, I think it's more like what they did when they changed Windows NT 5.0 to Windows 2000 - hoping to ditch all the bad news (mainly delays in getting to a working product) associated with the former name.
-MT.
A name change may seem a small thing, but not too long ago microsoft were telling all and sundry that .NET would be the future of the computing world.
.NET, after all, if I'm a qualified C++ programmer and I don't really know what it's 'about', how the hell is Joe Public gonna buy into this?
The fact that they change the name to something NOT containing the magic term '.NET' must mean, at the least, that all the expensive PR has failed.
microsoft need to actually demonstrate an actual use for
What I really don't understand is what MS hopes to accomplish by tweaking their product names only very slightly. So it use to be Windows 2000 Server and now it's going to be Windows Server 2003... big deal.
.NET was really a bet-the-business proposition, they might as well call the product what it is. Windows Server for .NET Version 1.0. Maybe MS has realized that .NET isn't as much a fundamental paradigm switch as it is a client/server application you run on your computer.
.NET Applications Version 1.0. That might actually help the consumer a little!
If
And for that matter, the workstation version could be Windows Workstation for
Honestly, the users that were suppose to benefit from "consistent" naming conventions (Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000) have been duped with WinME, WinXP and whatever else MS is going to call their next workstation version of NT.
Enough of these naming "conventions" already; call it what it is. IMHO, Apple is doing the most work in this area -- an OS is simply OS # - makes sense to me.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
I'm gonna be rich...
I bet a lot of domain name speculators/squatters are feeling good about their .NET-related purchases now...
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
It's hardly surprising that they encountered market confusion considering how many people will always associate .net their internet provider's domain name.
.wet initiative introduced at last year's Comdex show (which happened to coincide with a Vegas-area porn industry convention).
An even greater cause for brand confusion is the
Personal Strap-On Aircraft for Auction on eBay
There's a blurb about it at the bottom of this Wired Article.
One quote "Microsoft also is re-evaluating the ubiquitous name's use on other software." adds another dimension to this than just taking it off of the Windows 2003 Server.
It will be called "Microsoft Windows ($current_year + 1)" so that it won't LOOK terribly out of date for the next two years.
Hate me!
check out The Ars article on .NET
Comment removed based on user account deletion
is that M$oft knows the value of the public's perception. Other companies have pulled moves similar to this over the years, with far less fanfare (not to mention the griping and moaning). .Net, WinSrv200X...doesn't matter, (assuming as based on the article) since all of the core is remaining the same. .Net was intended for...well, it wasn't intended for the GP now, was it?
It doesn't matter what it's called people, all that matters is what it does.
Mandrake, Suse, Slack...need I say more? Same thing (essentially) different name.
Name change only. As far as no one in the general public 'getting' what
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
My guess is that the next thing that will nappen is that .NET Passport and .NET Services will get name and positioning changes, leaving .NET to be the one thing that it really was supposed to be in the first place, the common language runtime, framework, and development tools.
I think that the reason why so many things got the .NET moniker was internal politics. For a while the mandate in Redmond was that the entire focus on the company was on internet development. So product managers, in the battle for upper management attention, and funding, decided that they had to somehow show that their product was part of the internet initiative and as part of that they slapped the .NET moniker to everyting.
so effectively it doesn't mean anything. No surprises Microsoft is backing out. THings would have been different if they're called this thingy .DA (YES)
in any case, the semantic shift of the label
My other car is a cons.
Rule #1 when creating technical terms is
.net and immediately checked "visualstudio.net" to find out what the name of the latest version of visual studio was.
"Don't reuse a term that is already in use in a similar domain."
This is pretty much exactly what Microsoft did. Putting a "." before a three letter word has become synonymous with meaning the webpage that displays the product. It is likely that some managers heard of visual studio
Plus, "net" is short for internet. That's nuts. We live in a world where a great many people don't know the difference between a webbrowser and an operating system. There's no way these people would be able to distinguish an internet api called "internet" from the internet.
Its probably because they weren't really getting their corporate message across to consumers. I hear that the new API that they're building into all of their products is to be called "Owns You!"
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Good point. Going one step farther... I believe that Microsoft never got behind .NET. Sure, there was a mild push last year, but then *poof* no more push.
.NET books, but really there was never a "Microsoft type" marketing push. Maybe because there wasn't a "product" to push? .NET RIP 2003
They had really pretty sections in most book stores for the VAST number of
Not so. They've actually frozen out on features for a while now. I'm a beta tester on the product--the new IIS 6.0 is nice.
Ximian has announced that in response they will change the name of the "mono" project to "syphilis"
I think I remember reading an article that .NET was supposed to harken to, mentally, to a domain name extension. Such that .com is the extension for all commerical sites, .org for organization, so .net was going to be the "branded" starting point for all microsoft products. So I think they were trying to put all their products into some sort of directory tree. So .NET would be the root, and all languages would be .net, and the servers would be serverx.net, and products would be office.net, etc, etc. etc. However, where this really failed, for me anyway, is that .net is a misnomer, they should have created a new made-up extension. Secondly, I don't seriously think Microsoft had a good launch of this, they never could contain the marketing very well, you heard bits and pieces from all over the place, and never understood their direction from the top down.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
The core of .NET is the .NET framework, which is somewhat analogous to the Java Virtual Machine. Both the framework and the .NET Framework SDK are free.
Your missing the whole point guys. They are trying desperately now to keep the name Windows. Why? Because of thier legal wrangling attempts to keep anyone else from using anything close like "Lindows". Not to mention .NET is another common used word that they would then be challenged on... why have two fights...just keep one. If they weren't using Windows anymore.. a judge might ask what the big deal was with someone else using something close. Get it?
That's all I got from the commercial
</sarcasm>
I've said it before, but I'll repeat myself, MS is run by lawyers and marketing people who don't consider any technical aspects of what they're doing. MS messed up bad with the ActiveX craze and maybe this influenced the move away from the .Net name. Very few still understand what .Net actually is, and MS isn't helping. I really wish they could have some of their techs/programmers sit down and write a coherent explanation/introduction, without lawyer/marketing influence. It took me a looong time to get a grip on it, simply because any MS material is so filled with buzzwords and marketing terms.
For those that still don't know what .Net is, it's like an MS version of J2EE, not Java, J2EE. It's a architecture with among other things a large class library and a cross platform runtime that all .Net languages can run under.
Ok, so it's not 100% accurate, but close enough.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
From the article: .NET on so many Microsoft products has confused people as to what .NET actually means.
.NET really is. It was a bad idea for Microsoft to try to add ".NET" to every single product they sell.
Analysts are being quoted as saying that slapping
Your comment:
They are changing the name because people are getting confused about what
Where's +5 Insightfull coming from?
I've seen a number of posts trying to clarify what .NET is, and they're missing the point. .NET isn't just about web services and so on, which in itself is a good reason to change the name. .NET is a major attempt to shed legacy Windows problems and modernize both Windows itself and Windows application development. If you read the .NET and C# documents, you'll see this. For example, if you want to write a GUI application for Windows today, you have to use one of (a) raw Win32 API, (b) MFC, (c) a cross-platform toolkit like WxWindows, or (d) a tool like Delphi or Visual Basic. By a large margin, the last of these is the cleanest and least stressful--if you're only concerned about Windows that is (of course you can get Delphi for Linux in the guise of Kylix). But .NET is bringing the GUI building features of Delphi and Visual Basic to the OS, so there's support for this from the ground up. Ditto for technologies like DirectX 9. No more do you have to deal with arcane C++ interfaces to COM, you can use a pretty little C# component.
.NET the preferred method for developing Windows applications. If don't like C#, that's okay. Microsoft has been getting indepdendent language developers to port their own languages to .NET, including lesser used languages like Smalltalk, APL, and Mercury.
.NET could be a huge win. No more struggling with Petzold books, just use the much simpler .NET components. No need to hang onto awful legacy frameworks like MFC, which even Microsoft employees hate. No more having to choose between C++ and much slower scripting languages like Python for application development, just use C#.
In short, Microsoft is deprecating most of the Win32 API, making
As much as I hate to say it,
Actually I think this was also the first real push made by M$ to go to leased software.
Naming your Word Processor or Office Suite after the year makes no sense at all unless you plan to release a new one every year like they do cars. They get rid of the Y.X naming - which actually provides information to the consumer if you use it correctly - and start getting people used to naming like "Word 2000".
That way it seems more natural when you pay for Word 2003 and then pay again for Word 2004 then next...
Cause it better you know... the numbers bigger...
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
tell ya whut my first impression when I heard the term "net" associated with "microsoft". OH NO YOU DON'T! They are RICH ENOUGH now, they made "enough" money as far as I am concerned, and they got a confirmed track record of the high level management there being lying weasels. I think of them the same way I think of professional sports "gods" and "artists" out of hollyweird, just way over-paid and over-valued and over-hyped for what ya get. And luckily I'm not in some "business" area where I am forced to use their stuff by the PHBs in order to "make money", thank goodness. I am not gonna get trapped in that "net"! Once is enough thankew very much!Just too many viruses associated with their products, too many security vulnerabilites, and for them to start throwing around buzzwords like "net" and "trusted" they can byte me. Paying 100 clams to get guaranteed viruses is not an option any longer, and any "businesses" still sucked into their crap are being run by idjits, they are wasting money time and effort by the truckload. It's no wonder the US economy is in such weird straights. How many clues do ya need?
If I was car shopping, and I looked up and down the street and all I saw was "belchfire motors" cars in peoples driveways, and every hood was up and the car was being worked on every weekend, I would just not buy a belchfire, even if "everyone buys them" was the reality at the time. Enough's enough for that company, time to move on. When belchfire was first made, sure, it was cool, worked well enough, helped everyone get a car on the road, but something happened, and quality and security became "job 7896" for them. Time to let em go. The guys in the trenches can work someplace else, the fatcats there can live on the profits they got, and if that ain't enough tough kitty, that's the belchfire solution. The "stock holders" I could care less about, I don't believe in either usury or getting something for nothing in the wall street rigged casino scams.
I guess the new version of "Linux Server .ORG" is going to have to change it's name soon. And "Apple OS X .COM" will have to go south. "FreeBSD Server .EDU" may not get off scott free either.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
One thing that really differentiated the difference between .net applications and win32 ones was their appearance, which is different much like the way java apps look different. When Win XP came along with all the skins, this difference has evaporated. WinXP and .net apps have definitly taken some hints from kde/gnome world.
love is just extroverted narcissism
If I were in marketing, I'd say both .NET and Java are attempts to build operating systems for the Internet (as opposed to operating systems for computers.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Why not call it Windows XP Server? Makes more sense than calling in Windows 2003 Server.
-------------------------
slashdot@com.jarnot (swap the domain)
the more Microsoft keeps screwing its customers and changing up names on people once people figure out they don't want something, the sooner Microsoft will have to hide its products so people don't realize they're made by Microsoft....or maybe they're just too arrogant for that.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With subscriptions, you're forcing your customer base to re-evaluate their licensing on a monthly or yearly basis. Each time you ask someone to re-evaluate something, you're risking getting a new answer, like, "fuck paying $50 a month for Office, Ill just try out this OpenOffice Ive heard so much about.". I can just see IT departments going "Well, we need to save the company some money this year. All of our Windows and Office licenses are up in Octoboer. We HAVE to do something, let's just switch to Linux/OOO."
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
From the slashdot blurb:
.NET on so many Microsoft products has confused people as to what .NET actually means.
.NET really is. It was a bad idea for Microsoft to try to add ".NET" to every single product they sell.
Analysts are being quoted as saying that slapping
The entirety of your comment:
They are changing the name because people are getting confused about what
And you got modded +3 Insightful! Not +5 yet, but just wait. All you did was change the wording around, and not even that much!
what happened to the days would at least try to add tons of superfluous fluff around their restatements of the article when trying to karma whore.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
... and stick with it! I've had to tell many users that the upgrade from 98 is ME, not 2000. 2000 of course is the upgrade to NT. (officially anyways - ME is junk. And yes I know why 2000 is called 2000)
.Net, 98, ME, NT 3.51, 2000.
Or, put the following in order based on release date:
98SE, XP, 3.1, NT4, 95,
Bonus points for identifying the two different windows branches.
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
I'm *SO* happy Microsoft is dropping the
"Well, let's see...I can confuse him, anger him, or put him to sleep. Maybe I should fake a heart attack right now...."
What's funny is that Java's networking API is called java.net. You know, like Java.io, java.util, java.awt.image, etc.
.net marketing push I was looking through the API for the first time in a while and saw "java.net" and it immediately made me think of .net, and made me wonder why there was .net support in J2SE. Then I came to my senses :P
I've coded in java for years, and done lots of networking stuff in it, using java.net. But even then, during the height of the
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Why can't we just go back to the old naming method and call it "Windows NT Server" ? Life was so much easier back then!
Hey, I have an idea. Now, this is going to sound kind of crazy and I know I'm a little ahead of my time, but what if we were to simplify the name and give it a meaningful version number? We could call the next released version Windows 7.0. Microsoft Windows 7.0. It could be a HUGE media frenzy! "No XP, no 2000, no .NET.. just 7.0. The added benefit is that when a new upgrade comes out we can name it Windows 7.1 and people can tell that it is a NEWER and more advanced version!"
FYI, this is microsoft's e-mail sent to all partners: Name Change for Windows .NET Server 2003
Announcement for Microsoft Partners
Applicable To: All Microsoft Partners Worldwide
SUMMARY
The product name Microsoft(R) Windows(R) .NET Server 2003 is being changed, effective January 9, 2003, to "Windows Server 2003." Microsoft is making an effort to clarify the naming and branding strategy for .NET. As support for Web services becomes intrinsic across our entire product line, we are moving toward a consistent naming and branding strategy to better enable partners to affiliate with this strategy and customers to identify .NET-enabled products. The first product to be affected is Windows .NET Server 2003. The new name for the next version of Windows is "Windows Server 2003." This will not affect our time frame for launch, which is still planned for April 2003.
DETAILS
* We are pursuing an overall effort to clarify the naming and branding strategy around .NET. As support for Web services becomes intrinsic across our entire product line, we are moving toward a consistent naming and branding strategy to better enable partners to affiliate with this strategy and customers to identify .NET-enabled products.
* The next version of Windows Server will be formally called "Windows Server 2003." The reason for this is to simplify the product's naming and reconcile it with our branding strategy for .NET.
* "Windows Server 2003" will carry the "Microsoft .NET Connected" logo indicating its ability to easily and consistently connect disparate information, systems, and devices to meet customers' people and business needs (regardless of underlying platform or programming language). This logo is also available for use by our partners who are building solutions on the Microsoft platform to help customers identify solutions and products that support standards-based interoperability.
* The more complete integration of .NET Web services and products is one of several major enhancements in "Windows Server 2003" -- all aimed at providing a highly connected, productive, and dependable infrastructure with excellent economic value for our customers.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q) Why the name change?
A) In response to customer and partner feedback to provide clarity around our .NET strategy and programs. Specifically, we are moving toward a branding approach where ".NET Connected" is the way we communicate our products (and our partners' products) that enable customers to easily and consistently connect disparate information, systems and devices to meet their people and business needs, regardless of underlying platform or programming languages.
Q) Why make this change now?
A) Product naming, features, etc. are never final until the product ships -- this is both in response to customer feedback as well as part of a larger effort to provide clarity for customers and partners interested in affiliating with and benefiting from Microsoft .NET.
Q) What changes technically in the Windows Server 2003 product as a result of this name change?
A) There are no feature changes in the product. This is a naming change, and does not affect the functionality of the product in any way.
Q) Will this cause a slip in the Windows Server 2003 product schedule?
A) No -- we remain on track for a worldwide launch of "Windows Server 2003" in April 2003.
Q) Is this an indication that Microsoft is backing away from .NET?
A) Quite the opposite -- "Windows Server 2003" is a major step forward in our effort to provide a highly connected, productive, and dependable infrastructure with excellent economic value for our customers. "Windows Server 2003," with integration of the Microsoft .NET Framework, UDDI services, and other XML Web services support has set the industry bar for Web service development and performance -- combined with the new security, scalability, and performance of "Windows Server 2003" and we are delivering a platform optimized for the next generation of enterprise computing.
And what do you mean *getting* confused? Was there ever a time when the .NOT marketing message was clear?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Windows versions, listed (roughly) in order:
1.03 (I actually have originals of this...)
2.00
286 (at which point "2.00" was renamed "86")
386
3.00
3.1
3.11
95 (this has nothing to do with the "86" number used previously)
NT3.51 (a different number series from 3.11, so why start at 3.51?)
NT4
98
2000
ME
XP
Passport still exists, but I think that take up has been much slower than MS wanted (ie virtually nonexistant). In fact, to order evaluation copies of Windows XP Professional and Office XP, I had to sign up for a Passport. To sign on to Hotmail (in IE 6 only?) or MSN Messenger, at least, you have to associate a Passport account with your XP user account, so no, Passport is not exactly dead.
.NET My Services, formerly Halistorm, is (currently) dead. The computing industry and target clients essentially told MS where to shove it.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003
OUr company does approximately three year cycles. It names a a year about three years in the future, so it has shipped at least one year by the time that year has rolled around. For example "2002" and "2005". In 2004 the nervouse customers feel "sage" buying version 2002.4. The earlier adopters can buy 2005.1.
Now, I've heard from many sources that compiled Java class bytecode can be easily decompiled to source. Is this not fundamentally the case with any bytecode mechanism?
It's pretty much true true of any executable program. You can turn it into some kind of source code (at least assembly code if not the original higher level language). The .NET bytecode is in pretty much the same boat. If a dumb ol' computer can figure out what the instructions do, so can you.
What you don't usually get from these reversal processes are the original variable names and comments, but given the output of some programmers this might even be a plus.
I was also confused over the .NET strategy and then I read this artical on osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=686.
.NET the Framework is a collection of new APIs, programming languages and development tools that serve this "new way" of doing things. The new APIs are highly object-oriented, and the objects used are accessible by any supported language (VB.NET, ASP.NET, C/C++/C# and recently, even Java). This is a pretty revolutionary feature, having objects accessible by any language.
.NET's new APIs and libraries, applications are just hosts for a series of objects. Now you can load a given functionality found in any object to any .NET application. For example, if you are writing a Microsoft Word document and you insert an image, you might want to apply a certain filter to that image before finishing your document. Word, however, is not really an image manipulation application. Well, with .NET-enabled applications you can load a certain functionality from another installed application (or more importantly, through the web!), perform the specific function and save down your Word document locally or remotely. The thing is, applications are not simple applications anymore. They are hosts of a larger database of functionalities that they can be loaded at any time (for a fee or for free) through the web or locally. Similar feature-set is possible through Corba or OLE, as I said, but they are not standardized, they are difficult to integrate (a real headache for programmers), and they are not cross-platform."
,new revenue streems to continue Microsoft growth, and the winning of OS wars (.Net for the Linux kernal) it would seem a big mistake on Microsoft's part to not fully support this way of working.
To quote some of the artical for those who cant be bothered to go.
"NET is a new way of working things out when using your computer.
With
Given the posibilites
This is a nice idea however and if Microsoft dosn't persue this new strategy some one else will e.g. IBM for example ( just go to google and type Globus).
I thought that's what C# was all about - cloning Java.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I made this page for fun more than a year ago: http://home.zonnet.nl/dropdotnet/
Bizar technology?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Besides the confusion factor (which is large), 'e'-this and '.com'-that have gone out of style completely. Everybody is mad about their e-stocks dot-bombing, so naming things after the Internet would be dumb now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The next version will be "Windows FU".
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Remember that Java is a language, a plug-in, a virtual machine, and half a dozen other things. Ironically, Microsoft's difficulty at explaining what, exactly, .NET is, is despite the fact that they've done a better job of breaking it up into seperate, easily named, modules, unlike Sun who have generally called the whole thing "Java" (well, ok, they've called different Java bundles things like J2EE, J2SE, J2ME, Java2, JavaOne, etc..., but that's another story.)
Maybe someone should go the extreme opposite and create a language/VM system called "*grunt*".
"What's the VM called?" *grunt* "Well, ok, what's the language?" *grunt* "Ok, what's the marketing term for this?" *grunt* "Geez. Ok, what's the classname for a window?" *grunt*...etc... you get the idea.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I am puzzled that a project rename would generate 298 posts in Slashdot. I guess everyone had an opinion.
.NET is like Java, but it only runs de-facto on Microsoft platforms (in theory it will run on BSD too, but important parts are missing)
Schnapple
I walked into the dimly lit room and looked around. It seemed something was trying to gain my attention, but in the darkness, everything seemed to blend into one shapeless form or another.
As my eyes adjusted to the low light, I began to make out a scribbling on the far wall...dot not....dot nut....dot nat....dot nit....dot net??? I couldn't make it out and it worried me. Dot what?
I walked over and traced the ragged letters with my finger tips, trying to imagine who did this...and why. The scrawl was halting and labored. The only thing I could be sure of was that, whomever wrote this message, they were clearly in pain.
I backed out of the room and tried in vain to clear my head...what where they trying to say? Who was behind this cry? Was it a warning to stay away or a dieing request for help?
I went on about my rounds...the day shift would be on soon, and I'd have to return to the future. I'd let them work on this one. I'd heard they had another new open source tool that was made just to analyze these. It was too early and too much for me to consider yet another message from the other side...from the past. The last one took part of my soul, and I need the few little fragments that are left...
Because they renamed the product? I wish everyone who pretended to know anything about .NET would read the excellent article over at Ars Technica. At the same time, maybe the Microsoft marketing machine should read it as well. I'm sick of hearing people say that .NET is "software as a service", "Hailstorm", or the server technology. Other than having the classes loaded, the server is as much .NET as Solaris is Java. If Microsoft can get off of the buzzwords, .NET developers will have be able to establish their identity - currently, ".NET programmer" is about as specific as "GNU programmer".
.NET/GNU programmer, he can do _____________ (insert one of the many technologies associated with .NET/GNU here)
Hey! He's a
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Imagine that. If you're using say an OS called Microsoft Server 0.1 for your servers, and Microsoft Workstation 0.1 for your workstations.. Then if you saw that MS Server 0.2 was available, you'd know it was the next logical step in the upgrade path..
:)
I'm still a wee-bit confused by the currently available OS's..
Windows 2000 (Professional|Server|Advanced Server|DataCenter Server)
Windows ME
Windows CE (CE||.NET)
Windows XP (Professional|Home Edition|Media Center|Tablet|Embedded)
Imagine if they just had workstation and server, with nice numbers. I'm still not sure what I'd be running all my servers on, if I went to MS.. Luckly, I don't have to decide. I put the same version of Slackware on everything, and just install the parts I need.. Funny, it all fits on one CD, and I don't even have to pay outragous licensing fees for each version, or packages I add on.
I'm just sad that Slackware hasn't released a distribution for handhelds.. But lucky, "familiar" works on my iPaq.
Every software I've seen uses logical version numbers, except Microsoft.. And they used to even do it.. Well, kinda..
Win3.0
Win3.1
Win3.11
Win95
Win98
Win2000
The jumps in numbers are just too big.. Forget the subrevisions. Build numbers. SP numbers.. I feel sorry for the Microsoft techs who have to take tech calls from people who only know "I use Windows." When friends of friends call me and tell me that, it's like pulling teeth to find out if it's Win98 or XP.. "It came on the computer, how am I suppose to know?"
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
We know that Microsoot wants to destroy the IETF, and that they seldom write RFC-compliant software (witness their implementations of Kerberos, DNS, and just about any other Internet protocol that you care to name).
Remember that Microsoot's marketing efforts eclipse everything else that they are supposed to be doing...
The first time I saw the expression ".net" in print with reference to an MS API, I thought,"These bastards think they are going to appropriate a TLD that is given only to elements of the Internet's backbone!"...
".NET is symbolic of the oracular "insight" of ownership of the Internet envisioned by MS employees who've done too much of the Brown Acid(tm)!"
I still suspect that ".NET" was a symptom of a form of blindnes afflicting those who sincerely believe that they are God.
I still haven't figured it out either. In one of our offices, we went on a quest to try to figure the thing out.. We contacted a few MCSE's..
.NET language variants? Is it a programming language? I read that .NET would let password databases be shared. So it's an authentication scheme? .NET will let you run applications on any platform, even non-Microsoft. But it was only Microsoft products tagged with the .NET name. Can I use 'vi' to write in the .NET?
.NET was a game that would let you play with players on other systems, using programming to tell your pieces how to move.. But even that didn't make too much sense.. I wanted to try it out, but at the time, it wouldn't run on Win98, and definately not on my Linux machines.. I'm not going to invest in a new machine, or sacrifice a server, just to install 2000 or XP to play a game.. The boss probably would frown upon that. Well, and people may be a bit upset. :)
The most concise answer we found was ".NET is a framework." A framework for what, we don't know. I saw references to letting servers communicate, so is it a protocol? How about the
The most productive thing I ever heard about in
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
The thing is, none of the last round of server products were .NET in anything other than name anyway.
They were developed in the DNA world - pre-2000 (e.g last versions of Commerce, Biztalk and SQL Server's 2000) which was before MS even began this .NET rebranding excercise. Repackaging them all as .NET only served to confuse people at the time so reverting these guys could be a good thing....
But it sounds like they are dropping the names in the next generation of servers... which are more likeley to have a .NET flavour - Go figure!
Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
I see many "What is .NET" posts here. The best single whitepaper I've seen on .NET is by the Ars Technica folks:
.NET at Ars Technica
Microsoft
cheers.
This may be considered redundant, but ever since MS came up with this whole .NET thing.. i've been thinking.. OK.. sounds waaayy too much like they're trying to do the whole 'Synapse' thing. (Antitrust) About time they wised up.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
C# is a lot, lot like Microsoft J++: think of J++ as C# version 0.9.
You forgot NT 3.11, and NT 3.5
Even though NT was 1.0, MS didn't want the 1.0 stigma (specially with MS's 1.0 history) so called it NT 3.11, it's justification was that NT was at the smae level as Windows, so it deserved it. Silly since it's either more advanced (NT based on microkernel, 32-bit, protected memory) or much greener (a 1.0 release).
Ultimately the meaning behind any marketing term is somewhat arbitrary. When Apple came out with the Apple name, it initially didn't mean anything. Over the years it came to mean a lot in the minds of many people. That's kind of what a brand name is all about, right? .NET is the same thing only MS has done a very bad job defining it. Re-naming the Windows .net server is (perhaps) a step in the right direction. If you look at the leaked Q&A from the announcement, it seems very clear to me what they're doing. I'll try to explain in simple terms.
.NET as a web services initiative - basically a way of writing software that uses XML, SOAP, WSDL etc. to allow apps to interoperate. A poor mans COM.
.net framework.
.net framework is - for all intensive purposes three things. First, it's a new programming model for Windows based on the common language runtime that makes it much easier to write secure, stable Windows appps. It also includes a new version of ASP that makes building web-based easier. It also includes facilities that for building XML web services and a bunch of new class libraries for Windows and web apps.
.net into the name of the framework because it confused everyone. To people who can't read the tea leaves, it suggests that any appliacation built ising the framework is a ".net app." In reality, most of the apps built using the .net framework today are just better, more secure Windows apps or ASP/web-based apps.
.net brand is about Web services interop. They obviously still want people to build Windows apps and are making it easier to do so than it has been with Win32/MFC etc. So they're building web services capability deep into their platform -into Windows, into Office I'm sure and into all of their server apps.
.net is to web services/interop. The .net framework programming model/CLR etc is, fundamentally a Windows thing. No surprise, right?
.net framework/CLR programming model and porting it to other platforms. That way they can try to lure ISV's to build "Windows apps" that run on other platforms. I know. Sounds confusing but I think this is accurate.
1. In the beginning they announced
2. The a bunch of marketing goofs started attaching the name to lots of things - most importantly the
3. The
4. The big mistake they made was putting
With the announcement they said in clear terms that the
For developers this is a beautiful thing. They can take it or leave it. They choose to build on Windows based on its merits. Market opportunity, ease of development or whatever. Some may ultimately choose to build on Windows because Windows has good XML web services support.
I think MS's strategy is to continue to make Windows as good as they can and compete with J2 by providing superior support for web services. The theory (just a theory) is that if web services mature then developers can choose whatever platform they want and rely on web services to stitch things together across platforms. This could be a good strategy because it undermines the Java-only argument. No need to build apps on a single platform (middleware platform in this case) because web services provide good cross plat interop.
So, the bottom line is that MS is narrowing what
That said, MS is taking parts of the
This is way MS, IBM and other companies are so excited about web services and why others - particularly SUN, have been a little slow on the uptake. Although this is overly simplistic, Sun/the J2 crowd basically want everything to be Java/J2. IBM will sell anything to anyone. MS wants to make Windows the most attractive platform.
Gosh, this almost sounds like good old competition to me.
Sorry for the ramble but, mark my words, this is the correct interpretation.
They did this with ActiveX too. For a while, everybody at MS said their project was part of the ActiveX initiative. Then they scaled back the use of the term
This sort of thing is not uncommon in software companies - they have a new project that becomes flavour of the month, and everybod will try to reclassify their project to fit within the new project. If the new project has attributes A, B and C, a project with attributes C, D and E will claim to be part of the trendy project because of the overlap at C, when the real value of the trendy project is the combination of A, B and C.
The other thing that happens with new projects at software companies is that the entire sales force will want to be selling the new project and ignoring everything else. My theory here is that the salespeople have such tiny brains they can't deal with more than one project at once. The other projects languish for a time, which creates another incentive for them to reclassify themselves into the trendy project's area. This can be a real problem for the company because their staple lines stop selling as much since the salespeople aren't pushing them, and the new trendy thing is either not ready or hasn't built enough following to take up the slack.
Now I have to stop saying "Just say .NYET!".
Nah, you just have to purchase some key-signing software from - - - - Microsoft. Wow, they get you coming and going agian! :)
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
I had to reply to this.
That is great writing, my friend, in both style and substance. Not that I am by any means an expert.
But, I'm no idiot either and, that sort of writing is (mostly) wasted on this board. Have you ever heard of casting pearls before swine?
You should be published. Have you tried?
If not, you should.
To sign on to Hotmail (in IE 6 only?) or MSN Messenger, at least, you have to associate a Passport account with your XP user account
This is completely incorrect. There is an option to associate your passport account with your XP user account, and this makes things easier sometimes. BUT, it is an option, you do not have to associate your passport account to your XP user account to do anything. In fact, most of my family at home uses both MSN/Hotmail together and separately on Windows XP without linking to their XP user accounts.
you do not have to associate your passport account to your XP user account to do anything.
You may remember that, shortly after XP came out, there was a big stink because, while not requiring passport, XP's behavior strongly suggested (especially to the computer illiterate) that it was in fact required.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Microsoft marketing .NET is like ford running dumptruck commercials during the superbowl. It's a commercial product, if I need a compiler I know where to get it, if I need a tool I know where to go (I'll start in Redmond first).
.NET has bombarded me from every direction, I usually keep up with MS stuff despite my dislike for them, I gave up on this, the term seems to mean everything Microsoft, but it then seems to mean specific things in certain instances. It's f&cking confusing.
.NET
I half thought the MS marketeers were watching the smurfs and instead of smurf the used the word
New Smurf technology enabled my Smurf application with expanded communication using the Smurf framework on the Smurf advanced server.
I figure if street musicians can play in subways, I can drop bytes here:
Published?
- 50+ countries
- 15+ languages
- 10+ million printings per year for the last 4 years running.
I'm a technical writerOne of these days I'll find a publisher and get out of this rat race. If you know anyone, please tell me, thanks.
Fine, then I'll do it.
The biggest advantage to the platform for develpers is absolute type declarations with full knowledge at the object interface: if you write an object method in VB.NET that takes two Integers, a String, and an array of Dates and returns an Integer value, then you can directly refer to that method in your C# routine. There is no conversion needed between types, not even between languages, which has historically been a problem with Microsoft code ever since OLE.
Visual Studio .NET is a development IDE for all the Microsoft .NET languages: VB.NET, C#, and others. It's similar to Microsoft's Visual Studio 6.0, but all the separate components are better integrated. All languages compile together to produce a single "package", which you then ship to your customers. There are no "installations" as the package is self contained. And it still includes a native C++ compiler which can still emit code for any Windows platform (except for .NET...)
Microsoft says the combination of the above puts all languages on an equal footing: developers can code in whatever language suits them. (Since it's interpreted bytecodes, I think it makes all languages equally second class, but that's just me.) So with .NET language is not a barrier to function calls. You want to call method "Foo" on an object called "Bar"? You just do it in your working language, however that language invokes methods on objects. You don't know when you're writing it what language it will be called from. You don't worry when you're calling it what language it was written in.
That's the developers' carrot in a nutshell. And so here's the developers' stick: Everything is shipped as bytecodes in that package, and the supplied decompiler already spits out source code that's only missing some of the documentation. I asked the guy during the .NET product introduction "How is intellectual property protected if anyone can just decompile the code?" The answer started out evasive, but boiled down to: We [Microsoft] will be serving up our meat-and-potatoes functionality via the web, so our code is hidden behind our firewall. Come, join us. You do not know the power of the dark side. (OK, so maybe the guy didn't say that last line, or at least not out loud.)
On the whole, I was semi-impressed at the product introduction. Having strong type safety is really a good thing to me, because I do spend time fighting code that has been carelessly cast, and I also spend time converting from VARIANT arrays of UI1 to STD::strings. Automated garbage collection and automagic reference counting is also really nice. But interpreted languages haven't been exciting to me since GW-BASIC. (Sorry, you Java weenies, but I'm too old to think wasting cycles interpreting bytecodes in front of a user at run time is ever a good thing.) And C# is not C++, nor is it Java. I don't like that IL will only do its own random-time garbage collection and can not support destructors, not even virtual destructors. There are times when I want to garbage collect at a specific point in time (examples such as cleaning up scarce resources like database connections or sockets come easily to mind.)
But I really, really don't like that .NET is ultimately just a facade to hide the movement of software to the subscription model under Palladium. Want to print that Word document? Did you tithe Microsoft this month? Nope? Too bad. Are you still offline? Too bad, you can't run PowerPoint.NET until you're back online and we can check the status of your subscription (or at least check the status of your Visa card authorization.) .NET will make Palladium viable, since the CLR is a trusted software container (read: sandbox.)
So, on the whole, .NET has too many really huge negatives to get me going. It even caused me to ditch my MSDN subscription because it had become "Nothing but .NET" Literally.
John
C# is Java with the capitalization Gone Wrong.
.Net is C++ with "crippled" syntax - no templates, for example.
.Net and C# are nessicarily all bad, mind you. What I am saying is that in .Net, all roads lead to C# and other languages under .Net are really C# training wheels. You can choose to use the training wheels as long as you like, but if you want to really do anything you have to take them off someday...
.Net is, like Java, very heavily library based (in that most anything you want to do involves a number of library calls from a fairly rich library) - and those lbraries are most naturally accessed in C#. When using other languages, they will have varying ranges of ease to access these libraries but C# is always there at the end of the curve beckoning you closer.
C++ is C++.
C++ under
I'm not saying that
Part of that is because
For perhaps something more like what you were looking for, you might want to read Ten Top Traps in C# for C++ Programmers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Makes sense, although MS still hasn't got it right in practice. The last time I looked, "Works Suite 2003" was shipping with "Streets & Trips 2002".
S&T hardly changes, so it boggles the mind how MS could miss the schedule for including S&T 2003 in the suite.
'Err... ah... ignore the old software behind the curtain... FOR I AM THE GREAT AND MIGHTY.. err.. BILL, YES, THE GREAT AND MIGHTY BILL!!!'
-MT.
Let me guess... you've never used or written software for Windows, have you?
The code base of the NT side of the family has changed dramatically between NT 3.51 and XP, although thanks to the backwards compatibility of the Win32 API a lot of the changes aren't immediately apparent.
-MT.
No, they couldn't possibly do that - if they did, they's be two version behind Sun's Solaris (9.0) and a whole three version behind Apple's MacOS (10.2) - can't be having that! :)
-MT.
Actually, it was originally supposed to be release in 1998, but was repeatedly pushed back due to changing priorities being handed down from Bill, which in turn was influenced by changes in the marketplace (Internet, Java, XML). Also, a lot of stuff that was supposed to be part of Windows NT 5 ended up being dropped, due to problems getting the technology working properly - this was Microsoft's now-rarely-mentioned Cairo project, which envisaged what is now planned for Longhorn and beyond, back in the mid-90s. The Register has a write-up on the history of Cairo, and what became of it.
-MT.
If it takes that long to explain it, then it's not going to sell.
.NET was put to. It was used as a marketing gimmick, and to justify getting people locked in to the system to pay for new versions and upgrade their systems.
.NET as you describe is supposed to fix? It's success cannot be measured until that happens (I suspect it's unofficial goal is to get people to spend loads more money).
.NET was a new language to be used in the Windows system (basically, like a more integrated shell script, with bells on). VB.NET would not exist, but you would have VB *bindings* to .NET. In this case, you'd get interoperability between languages bu sing the .NET bindings as a mediator. You would not have to learn the perl/C++ API for interoperation, just the .NET interop API, and MS would produce a .NET API for both perl and C++. .NET as the system API would be used like POSIX is currently for perl and C++ (MS could, and IMO *should* implement 99.9% of the POSIX requirements in windows, then use that as their basis for .NET).
You also don't address the *use*
What is the problem that
My interpretation is basically that they've gotten a new language, and they are changing all their other languages to be like it. IMHO, NOT a good idea. Why use perl.NET if the only difference between it and VB.NET is the way you for a "for" loop? I would've been better impressed if
Ta.
.NET the "language" is an intermediate language bytecode called IL (Intermediate Language). (...) .NET the framework also contains the system class, which exposes all of the available platform functionality.
.NET is the platform and more like the "thinking". There's no ".NET, the language", since .NET is just a concept. There's no ".NET, the framework" either; its title is simply ".NET Framework".
.NET is:
.NET technology enables the creation and use of XML-based applications, processes, and Web sites as services that share and combine information and functionality with each other by design, on any platform or smart device, to provide tailored solutions for organizations and individual people. .NET is a comprehensive family of products, built on industry and Internet standards, that provide for each aspect of developing (tools), managing (servers), using (building block services and smart clients) and experiencing (rich user experiences) XML Web services. .NET will become part of the Microsoft applications, tools, and servers you already use today--as well as new products that extend XML Web service capabilities to all of your business needs."
.NET is Microsoft's platform that directly supports and allow creation of XML-based applications and web services. Also read this, it might clear things up.
Microsoft describes what
".NET is the Microsoft solution for XML Web services, the next generation of software that connects our world of information, devices, and people in a unified, personalized way.
There's nothing more to it than that, really --
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Well, when I go to http://www.microsoft.net/ I get the great words:
.net is about "smart living", whatever that means, or whatever Gill Gates thinks it means.......damn, gotta get rid of my dumb Linux, freebsd and Apple boxes, and bring back the dead MS boxes i used to run...
.net is all about, making everybody need Microsoft......
"Smart Living See how new and future Microsoft products and technologies showcased at CES will help you have fun, keep in touch, and be entertained."
So, from that, I guess:
1.
2. I will be wearing a Microsoft watch sometime in the future......damn again, i really like my mechanical automatic Officine Panerai Militare...do I really have to have a Microsoft watch in order to live smart and keep in touch and be entertained and have fun?
3. I will need a tablet PC.......damn...I just want the new Powerbook 17" G4, do I really need a table PC running XP? I hate XP...arg. Guess I will have to if i want to keep in touch, have fun and be entertained...
4. My mobile phone will run windows........damn..I really like my Nokia....guess that does not keep me in touch, let me have fun, or entertain me...............
I guess we all need Microsoft to have fun, keep in touch, and be entertained, that is what
Real men don't need signitures!!!
Well, there was never a marketing push for MFC either (or even Win32) but they're both prevalent. .NET is a framework. Everything else with the .NET tag is either a rebranding of something that existed before, or something written with the .NET framework but .NET itself is a framework, the CLR, and some languages.
-Steve
Actually .NET uses a series of extensions to SOAP called .NET Remoting which adds object export. Otherwise you're limited to flat APIs, despite the name SOAP does not allow object transport via a network. Embrace and extend... sigh
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yep, but now that is irrevelent. Microsoft has combined their code bases for home and business OS's into XP (or so they claim). The Windows95 track is dead, NT is dead. The hybrid OS that would serve both business server needs and home user gaming needs that was promised to us in MS timelines in 1993 is finally here with XP. Or so they say. Apparently not?
:)
:
You got that right!
The problem is, although Windows 95/98 and Windows NT (as an add-in for NT 3.51, and integral in NT 4) share a similar UI, the Win32 API that each platform supported was markedly different. Windows 9x lacked the security APIs and (for a long time) OpenGL, whilst NT did not have the direct hardware access that Windows 9x could fall back on. Also, the hardware driver architechture was completely different between the two.
This was one of the problems that caused the release of what would become Windows 2000 to be pushed back - the new Windows needed to support the features and idiocyncrasies of both platforms, in order to support the *applications* that were being used on either platform. This was the crucial part - it didn't matter how technically superior the new Windows was, if the customer's existing applications wouldn't run properly then it would sink, and quite possibly take Microsoft with it. (Remember, Windows 2000 was the *only* option at this point, there was no Plan B waiting in the wings).
Some links for your further enlightenment
Microsoft Windows History
Another potted history of Windows (warning - pop-ups lurking here!)
The official word on the name-change to Windows 2000, from Microsoft PressPass
An article on the historical links between Windows NT and VMS (They're more related than you think!)
'Why Windows NT 5.0 Will Make the World a Better Place', written in September 1997(!) by Jesse Berst for ZDNet Anchordesk. Gives a run-down of the feature list at that time, and also gives a figure of how long NT 5.0 had been in development at that point.
'New Windows could solve age-old puzzle', courtesy of News.com - a write-up of the (in)famous Cairo project, and where it fits into the Windows story.
Food for thought, I thing you'll agree.
-MT.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You should look into fictional, tech-style writing. You have an excellent way with prose, and your short writing was a bit haunting, mixed in with hope - I loved it. Just something to consider - you have the knack.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Slashdot is like that. Anyone can become moderator - as long as they haven't been unlucky in metamoderation (which many of us who have always tried to be fair have) and moderation ultimately favours the trolls who set up a new account every week, post karma whoring stuff to raise their karma and then moderate according to opinions rather than to whether articles are any good.
Dealing with this issue would involve an overhaul of the Slashdot moderation system, but therein lies a dialema: while moderators who abuse the system have the upper hand, those who would do a good job are modded so that they can't ever get the karma necessary to moderate. Worse, the abusers have multiple metamoderation accounts too and can get good moderators kicked out of the system altogether.
This quagmire of poor moderators destroying the opportunity for good moderators to prevail will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.
You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that Slashdot is important to you, but that good moderation is a necessity. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done to improve Slashdot's moderation system by Rob Malda and others, but that if the problem of poor moderators being out of touch and out of control is not resolved, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how poor moderation harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on Slashdot moderation.
You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Perhaps I divided it up in arbitrarily labeled fragments based on my understanding. But none of the Microsoft marketing drivel ever made anything clear. This is how I explained it to myself.
John
I did mention at the very bottom that I think .NET is being used as the "Gateway to Palladium." I don't believe it was created to that end, but its architecture certainly lends itself to absolute OS control of the machine. And that's the ultimate lock-in.
What is the problem that .NET as you describe is supposed to fix?
I think the problems Microsoft is addressing are twofold: One, make development "easier" by improving type safety and allowing free choice of languages. Easier development leads to more development per developer, therefore developers are more "productive." Also, it should improve platform stability. (Carrots.) Two, it will help Microsoft make more money by moving end users to a subscription-based model of software sales. (Stick.) All of these help Microsoft, but only the stability portion helps the end user.
My interpretation is basically that they've gotten a new language, and they are changing all their other languages to be like it.
It's not really a new language, it's a mostly-familiar set of front-end languages (VB.NET ~= VB, C# ~= C++) to a new bytecode language, and a new API beneath it.
New bindings in code to .NET beneath wouldn't solve the current DLL hell problems. And the old languages don't improve reliablity just because they're generating bytecode. The automatic memory allocation and deallocation means that there will be almost no chances for buffer overflows or memory leaks, the biggest contributers to crashing under Windows today. Sure, programs can still be written "wrong", (such as add $1.00 and $2.00 and come up with $2.99) but they won't be as likely to crash the platform beneath themselves or corrupt other unrelated applications.
John
I just need to have a distro I can convince my wife, son, brother-in-law, mother and sister to run. It's very hard to tell them "Hey, you can't buy software at Target or Best Buy any more because we run Linux now." That's not a big selling point.
John
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I got that .NET was quite a bit more than .NET server. My point was simply that Micorsoft Marketing failed to promote .NET.
.NET encompassing everything, I don't think MS could determine a good way to market it. In addition, I think someone realized that maybe all the time and money used to create such strong brand recognition would be for naught if they continued to try and change the "brand" to .NET.
In the past Micorsoft has always found a way to market it's products. However, they always marketed their products individually... Windows 9x to everyday end users and coding tools to industry users, for example.
With
Of course, that's just my 2cents.
You nailed it: a rebranding. I think MS Marketing woke up and realized if they continued they would actually be trying to re-brand (thus competing with itself) products that already have the strongest brand in the business.
Like I said, last year: lots of interviews and press releases, some good technical articles and some small ad work and then the release of the manuals. The manuals had nice graphics and some new content.
Then, soon after the push began, everything stopped. Then, the negative articles and rumors began to fly and the push just stopped.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I need to hijack a friend's Win2k machine one of these days, so I can play with it. It still doesn't work under Linux. :(
.NET Framework. Please review the .NET Framework documentation and make sure your OS is supported by at least the redistributable package. The second OS requirement for Terrarium is that DirectX 7 is supported. The Terrarium graphics make use of DirectX 7 in order to achieve complex scenes with a minimum of CPU and Graphics processing time. Given the above requirements the following OSes are recommended by the Terrarium team for both running a client and for doing creature development.
.NET Server
---
From their FAQ:
---
1.1.2 What OSes are supported/not supported?
The largest OS requirement for Terrarium is that the OS properly supports the
* Windows 2000, Any Flavor.
* Windows XP, Home/Pro.
The following OSes are not capable of running the Terrarium due to software constraints.
* Windows NT 4.0
The following OSes have not been heavily tested and may be used, but may have unknown issues or complications.
* Windows 98
* Windows ME
* Windows
---
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.