> such as?... SQL Server 2000 and above are amazing. In terms of both the UI and the stuff you can access programmatically, SQL Server anticipates the needs of novice and expert users.
VS.NET 2005 (beta 2 now, releasing next month) is great, particularly for the web dev crowd. I've been working in it since June.
If you haven't used either of these products, or some of the other great stuff Microsoft has made, you're really not in a position to judge.
Consider Macromedia Flash and perhaps FlashCom server, especially if you're looking to do something relatively bandwidth-light yet attractive.
Flash has come a long way in the last few years: Flash 7 supports video and has XML parsing and even Xpath functionality baked into the player. Actionscript 2 supports class-based and OOP development. The XMLSocket class might be useful if you're looking to maintain persistant communications.
The nice thing about Flash is that you could develop a engaging experience without spending a ton of money. You can maintain programmatic control of what to show when, and you have this rich platform that will encapsulate whatever sorts of multimedia you want to show.
Flash Communications Server would be ideal for what you're trying to do, though its cost is probably prohibitive. I wish Macromedia would revisit the pricing structure of FlashCom.
There seems to be some natural and/or knee-jerk confusion that pivot tables are some Microsoft-only creation. For some folks that naturally means that they'll never want to use them. That's too bad, a little bit like concluding that referential integrity or relational table structures are "so Microsoft" just because they're discussed in SQL Server documentation and literature.
Best discussion I've read of pivot tables as a generic tool for managing data appears in O'reilly's thin "Transact SQL Cookbook". Excellent book. The first few chapters are devoted to pivot tables alone. According to the authors, PTs are fundamental to solving many data storage and display problems.
Have a read, then post more.:)
Regarding ASP: read up on it and you'll know in what ways it was "original" and useful, and what ways it wasn't. It's worth paying particular attention to when it was released, and what problems it solved versus older methods of server interaction.
Microsoft licensed Citrix thin-client technology for a time, which probably contributed to MSFT's recognition of the potential of a tool like RD.
SQL Server's partnership with Sybase ended..when?
The fact that a company utilizes existing ideas and technologies takes nothing away from a superior implementation. Neither iTunes nor iPods are in any way original, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Apple has come up with a product that people like and that works pretty well.
Arguing Sybase's role in a product like SQL Server is just silly, given that their involvement ended at least five years prior to the introduction of the two SQL Server features that I called particular attention to (Query Builder and SQLXML.)
Face the world with an open mind, and you'll do better and be better.
A number of the products and developments I listed are as close to an original conception as you're going to get. In the landscape of marketable tech, there is nothing new under the sun: if someone's willing to bet the life of a business on it, you can guarantee that it's been thought of, written about, and probably tested for years in academia.
Microsoft has weaknesses like any company, but particularly in research and software engineering, I think they're among the more innovative companies. Just MHO.
C'mon, you probably can't think of anything "cool" because you don't want to. I'll bite:
ASP 3.0 and the resulting aftermarket of extensions
SQLXML extensions for SQL Server beat all the major players with rich DB/XML interactions.
SQL Server is a very nice tool, especially the UI on things like its Query Builder, which IMHO is a work of genius. It supports the needs of expert users while simultanously training newbie developers.
ADO/ADO.NET is awesome: unifies structured data storage forms, supports persistant and disconnected data
Visual Studio / the free "Visual Web Express" or whatever it's called (have you tried it?)
ASP.NET
Mappoint as a subscribable web service, unique biz model
"Streets and Trips" standalone routefinding/GPS utlility
Xbox is very cool, modded or not. Amped/Amped2 games are unique.
PocketPC is very useful.
Latest implementation of Remote Desktop (ships with XP) is insanely great. Access local devices like disks and printers from remote sessions, or vice versa. I did usable remote desktop session from Instanbul - USA over 28.8k modem. That's pretty cool.
So another high-profile "community-based" site implements a subscription system. The Motley Fool also moved to a subscription model recently. There's is an interesting twist: the editorial content continues to be free, but if you want access to the boards, you have to pay the money.
I didn't pay the money, even though I frequented the Motley Fool for almost three years, (and speculated endlessly about who the brilliant and mysterious HowardRoark might be on the AMZN board.)
The problem I have with the Fool's approach, and Slashdot's apparent decision is that it violates an implied ethic between the business and the community. TMF touted its "free" boards for years. Slashdot reminds you that all comments belong the the poster. Both sites encouraged people to give freely of their time and mental energy, and both appear ready to hold access to "the community" hostage in exchange for money.
It's only a matter of time until Slashdot blocks all access to non-subscribers. Is the issue really "survival", in the sense of paying for bandwidth and salaries? If that were the case, Slashdot could put up an itemized target number, and the community could match it. But that isn't the case. The "survival" argument is a facade. Slashdot is a business, Andover/VA is a business, and all of these entities seek to monetize the community.
Slashdot Mirror
> such as? ... SQL Server 2000 and above are amazing. In terms of both the UI and the stuff you can access programmatically, SQL Server anticipates the needs of novice and expert users.
VS.NET 2005 (beta 2 now, releasing next month) is great, particularly for the web dev crowd. I've been working in it since June.
If you haven't used either of these products, or some of the other great stuff Microsoft has made, you're really not in a position to judge.
Consider Macromedia Flash and perhaps FlashCom server, especially if you're looking to do something relatively bandwidth-light yet attractive.
Flash has come a long way in the last few years: Flash 7 supports video and has XML parsing and even Xpath functionality baked into the player. Actionscript 2 supports class-based and OOP development. The XMLSocket class might be useful if you're looking to maintain persistant communications.
The nice thing about Flash is that you could develop a engaging experience without spending a ton of money. You can maintain programmatic control of what to show when, and you have this rich platform that will encapsulate whatever sorts of multimedia you want to show.
Flash Communications Server would be ideal for what you're trying to do, though its cost is probably prohibitive. I wish Macromedia would revisit the pricing structure of FlashCom.
There seems to be some natural and/or knee-jerk confusion that pivot tables are some Microsoft-only creation. For some folks that naturally means that they'll never want to use them. That's too bad, a little bit like concluding that referential integrity or relational table structures are "so Microsoft" just because they're discussed in SQL Server documentation and literature.
Best discussion I've read of pivot tables as a generic tool for managing data appears in O'reilly's thin "Transact SQL Cookbook". Excellent book. The first few chapters are devoted to pivot tables alone. According to the authors, PTs are fundamental to solving many data storage and display problems. Have a read, then post more. :)
Regarding ASP: read up on it and you'll know in what ways it was "original" and useful, and what ways it wasn't. It's worth paying particular attention to when it was released, and what problems it solved versus older methods of server interaction.
Microsoft licensed Citrix thin-client technology for a time, which probably contributed to MSFT's recognition of the potential of a tool like RD.
SQL Server's partnership with Sybase ended..when?
The fact that a company utilizes existing ideas and technologies takes nothing away from a superior implementation. Neither iTunes nor iPods are in any way original, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Apple has come up with a product that people like and that works pretty well.
Arguing Sybase's role in a product like SQL Server is just silly, given that their involvement ended at least five years prior to the introduction of the two SQL Server features that I called particular attention to (Query Builder and SQLXML.)
Face the world with an open mind, and you'll do better and be better.
Microsoft has weaknesses like any company, but particularly in research and software engineering, I think they're among the more innovative companies. Just MHO.
Your assertion that Remote Desktop is insecure is interesting to me. Can you substantiate it? And what exactly do you mean by "hack?"
Give credit where credit is due.
So another high-profile "community-based" site implements a subscription system. The Motley Fool also moved to a subscription model recently. There's is an interesting twist: the editorial content continues to be free, but if you want access to the boards, you have to pay the money.
I didn't pay the money, even though I frequented the Motley Fool for almost three years, (and speculated endlessly about who the brilliant and mysterious HowardRoark might be on the AMZN board.)
The problem I have with the Fool's approach, and Slashdot's apparent decision is that it violates an implied ethic between the business and the community. TMF touted its "free" boards for years. Slashdot reminds you that all comments belong the the poster. Both sites encouraged people to give freely of their time and mental energy, and both appear ready to hold access to "the community" hostage in exchange for money.
It's only a matter of time until Slashdot blocks all access to non-subscribers. Is the issue really "survival", in the sense of paying for bandwidth and salaries? If that were the case, Slashdot could put up an itemized target number, and the community could match it. But that isn't the case. The "survival" argument is a facade. Slashdot is a business, Andover/VA is a business, and all of these entities seek to monetize the community.