Actually, what would really kill Microsoft is if Adobe decided to integrate C# into Flash.
Remember how upset Microsoft got when some small company demonstrated a program that compiled C# winforms projects into a Flash program? The *immediately* bought that company and killed the technology.
Have you ever tried Visual Studio? Seriously, if you give Silverlight dev in Visual Studio an honest try, you'll be spoiled and won't want to go back.
The programming language alone is worth the switch. It's soooo much more capable than Actionscript and the runtime lets you do advanced things like threading. You can also use the same language to build your own web services.
But, you open source folks always tout the effectiveness of open source methodologies.
Microsoft is doing the right thing here and I hope other companies follow: Instead of building products "for Linux", give them what they need to build their own. I personally wouldn't expend one ounce of energy building a piece of desktop software for Linux users.
They don't pay for anything, so let them build their own.
You sound like a child. There is no "deserving" when getting sued. People sue other people. Fortuny did something that this guy didn't like and the guy is doing something back.
The iPod is a different type of device. Businesses don't have any need for mp3 players but they do for cellphones and portable computers.
The story will be much much different this time. Sure, a few businesses will buy the total lock-in that Apple offers but most of them don't want to be locked into a single vendor, especially one such as Apple who doesn't give a shit about interoperability.
"Microsoft is not asking for source code here. They just want to be able to publish applications for that platform. In fact, they are not asking for anything more on that platform then they permit for Windows or the Xbox."
FTFA: "I agree that no single company can create all the hardware and software," he said. "Openness is central because it's the foundation of choice." - Ballmer
Slashdot Mirror
It figures that you care about fashion. OSuX users usually do.
Actually, what would really kill Microsoft is if Adobe decided to integrate C# into Flash.
Remember how upset Microsoft got when some small company demonstrated a program that compiled C# winforms projects into a Flash program? The *immediately* bought that company and killed the technology.
Actually yes. Moonlight at version 2.0 also implements the Silverlight 3.0 API.
Care to try again?
Amen brother.
Have you ever tried Visual Studio? Seriously, if you give Silverlight dev in Visual Studio an honest try, you'll be spoiled and won't want to go back.
The programming language alone is worth the switch. It's soooo much more capable than Actionscript and the runtime lets you do advanced things like threading. You can also use the same language to build your own web services.
I wonder what's really going on in Iran. Because this wreaks of propaganda.
But, you open source folks always tout the effectiveness of open source methodologies.
Microsoft is doing the right thing here and I hope other companies follow: Instead of building products "for Linux", give them what they need to build their own. I personally wouldn't expend one ounce of energy building a piece of desktop software for Linux users.
They don't pay for anything, so let them build their own.
They always release their software for Windows first. Will this be the same? I wonder...
"Does he deserve to get sued over what he did?"
You sound like a child. There is no "deserving" when getting sued. People sue other people. Fortuny did something that this guy didn't like and the guy is doing something back.
Anyway, you're a fucking child. Grow up child.
iPods and game consoles are consumer only products. They're a completely different playing field than cellphones.
Vista is running on more personal computers than OSuX and Linux combined. Failure? Not in relative terms.
But they're not locked into Microsoft hardware. That's an important distinction. You are never _truly_ locked into a software product.
At this stage of the game, almost every piece of Microsoft software is replaceable. Exchange is the last piece.
OK, but you're saying the same thing that I am.
If Apple chose to make an OS that ran on IBM's hardware then they wouldn't have lost.
>>Apple lost the PC war for a lot of reasons, this wasn't one of them.
Incorrect. It's the only reason.
If you have a better one, say it.
Well, I didn't say that.
The iPod is a different type of device. Businesses don't have any need for mp3 players but they do for cellphones and portable computers.
The story will be much much different this time. Sure, a few businesses will buy the total lock-in that Apple offers but most of them don't want to be locked into a single vendor, especially one such as Apple who doesn't give a shit about interoperability.
No. You're the stupid one because you don't even understand what is being said here.
To understand more, read this guy's comment:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1136093&cid=26940601
"Microsoft is not asking for source code here. They just want to be able to publish applications for that platform. In fact, they are not asking for anything more on that platform then they permit for Windows or the Xbox."
>>Apple's brand is based on a tight vertical integration of hardware and software...
Which is what made them lose the PC war. Which is what will make them lose this one, in the end.
They won an opening salvo; a single battle. That's it. It won't last.
Right, because this really sounds like pleading!
FTFA: "I agree that no single company can create all the hardware and software," he said. "Openness is central because it's the foundation of choice." - Ballmer
Why don't you compare machines at a price point that people actually buy?
You won't get the same results in the $1,000 - $2,000 range.
Right, but you're not getting a BMW. You're getting a computer. And no, they're not "the BMW" of computers.
My early 2008 Macbook Pro has only 2 USB ports on it and the lame built-in display only goes up to 1440x900.
Even low end Dells can have a screen that do 1920x1200. So no, that's not a BMW.
Is that where all the businesses buy computers these days?
Wrong again. Those articles came out before GPU memory virtualisation was made optional, the only thing that kept DX10 off of XP.
And you'll excuse me if I don't consider Microsoft blogs a good source of information for this topic.
Actually no. You're wrong. Try knowing something about what you're talking about.
This will help you:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/321/1003321/dx10-is-do-able-on-windows-xp
Incorrect.
You CAN get DX10 on XP because it's already been done. Try googling it, you'll find installers, hacks, notes on how to do it, etc:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=DirectX+10+XP&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=DirectX+10+XP&fp=CEN4flbaS4A
"...the only difference is that MS is trying to make profit from it."
OH LAWDS! Someone is trying to make a profit!!?? RMS forbids it!!