Will AJAX Threaten Windows Desktop?

prostoalex writes "They are not your father's HTML pages anymore. AJAX interfaces are getting more complex and versatile, relieving the user of the necessity to reload the page, and thus are becoming more like your average desktop apps. The catch? AJAX apps work in any browser out there, making the OS layer a bit irrelevant. Will the trend threaten Microsoft desktop near-monopoly? Or are we hearing the story of poorly debugged device drivers again?"

Comments

Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the trend threaten Microsoft desktop near-monopoly?

No, it will strengthen it. According to the article, Microsoft is already creating a proprietary toolkit for AJAX.

We recognize the need in certain scenarios for browser-based, standards-based stuff and that's where we have ATLAS technology, which is going to simplify the development of AJAX content

Perhaps they hope their toolkit will become the standard.

Re:Monopoly

[SlashEdsDoYourJobs]

Oh, please. Enough with the FUD.

According to the article, Microsoft is already creating a proprietary toolkit for AJAX.

No. According to the article, Microsoft is already creating a toolkit for AJAX. You added the proprietary bit, the article didn't say one way or the other.

Perhaps they hope their toolkit will become the standard.

You are turning the meaning of "standards-based" upside down. It means it uses standards, not that it is a standard. For example, it's based on the ECMA-262 standard. And it will be cross browser compatible.

So do you actually have anything of value to say, or does your comment boil down to a simple "yeah, but Microsoft are evil!" rant?

SAJAX

[Psionicist]

Just to see what the fuzz is all about I created a small AJAX "app" using SAJAX, a small AJAX toolkit for an assortment of languages. Here it is: SAJAX + Google Define-test. Kinda fun and very simple to write. I don't see any obvious use for it though except for larger applications such as Google Maps. Most "interactive" contents over HTTP is message boards and such and they don't really benefit from AJAX directly.

Re:Slow pain

[Anonymous Coward]

All the heavy processing takes place on the server in all my AJAX apps. Speed is not an issue.

Re:I hope not...

[aftk2]

You know, hordes of Slashdotters might descend upon me for the mere suggestion, but you might try looking at Flash:

• Many more widgets, interfaces available
• The user's browser - provided they have the Flash plugin installed, which most do - is irrelevant
• Reusable, shareable components
• And, the main reason I thought of Flash in the first place: Actionscript 2, which includes strict data typing, class files and structure, etc...

Flash can be really horrible for a great many things. As a Mac user, I'm unfortunately familiar with its occasionally lagging performance. But it can fit the bill for some things, and I think Macromedia - before they became Adobemedia, of course - were really trying to promote Flash as an application creation tool, rather than just some fancy rich media web plugin. Think about it.

Oh. And Flash had remoting with XML while the term AJAX was still a gleam in the eye of those folks at Adaptive Path.

Re:AJAX is no threat to desktops.

[archangel85j]

Actually the back button + bookmarking has a fix.

Content with style article

Sorry, looks like the site is down. But it worked for my apps.

Google's cache of the article

Re:Slow pain

[Tablizer]

Sure, supposedly Web browsers are supposed to all be conforming to a standard that can be used, but we all know they aren't.

True, but in practice, at least for intranet, you only have to target two browsers: IE and Mozilla/Netscape. If you can get GUI widgets that work under both of these, you pretty much have what you need regardless of whether they fit some grumbly ol' bloated european red-tape standard (typed at the risk of a 'flamebait' mod).

If you want cross platform, it would make much more sense to do such development to another platform which most people have, which is Java.

Java applets left such a bad taste in peoples' mouths that it would have to really be a lot better than the alternatives to get a listen. Hopefully Ajax will focus more on providing widgets than trying to be the whole entire damned app, which early applets tried to do. This would allow better incrimental as-needed downloading of screens and logic. Sun/Java wanted to rule everything, not just widgets, and such greed bit them in the ass.

Re:Pass me the crackpipe, please

[lucidvein]

Here's some food for thought: imagine a simple instant messaging program, written in your favorite programming languages. One the connection to your chat party is established, all you need to do is send the text the user types, and wait for incoming text and display it. Now, imagine implementing the same sort of application in an environment where the only possible communication is you making an HTTP request and receiving an XML response.

What you are describing can be found right here...

http://www.plasticshore.com/projects/chat/ XHTML live Chat based on the XMLHttpRequest Object (ajax)

Works pretty well and very easy to implement.

Re:AJAX is no threat to desktops.

[gomoX]

That is badly used AJAX. There are really nice uses for it, but it must integrate into traditional websites to make them better, not replace them entirely.
You still have individual pages for whatever is needed, but, say, an interactive form application (like writing an sending email) is perfectly fitted for an AJAX page that will redirect you to your Inbox when you are done: you shouldn't be allowed to go back (using your browser's history functions) to that point where the page told you that "that e-mail addres does not have an "@" in it, try another one".
That's why it is important to pick the right tool for the job. AJAX is no replacement for normal HTML pages, it is an extension that should be used carefully in order to enhance, and not destroy, your user's experience.