Expert Texture
The blogged wandering of Robert W. Anderson
February 19, 2008 at 9:51 am · Filed under .NET, Miscellaneous
Mary Jo Foley writes there’s no Windows Server 2008 SP1 in the works.
Why? Because the first RTM of Server 2008 is called Windows Server 2008 SP1. This is due to Server 2008 and Vista sharing the same core code and components.
Hmm.
This makes only marginal sense, and then only if Microsoft commits to keeping the service packs synchronized across the Windows 6 product family. I think this will be less confusing to customers. We’ll see if this synchronization happens.
Regardless of Microsoft’s plans, the SP1 designation on Server 2008 is misleading. Most of the server components of Windows 6 will remain without a service pack until SP2.
Customers who like to wait for initial service packs still will — unless they are duped into thinking they’ve already got it.
Tags: Microsoft, Server 2008, SP1, Vista, Windows
February 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm · Filed under Miscellaneous
According to Mary Jo Foley, Some won’t have to wait until March for Vista SP1. Cool. I’m installing it now.
Tags: Microsoft, SP1, Vista, Windows
July 19, 2007 at 1:32 pm · Filed under .NET, Grid Computing
The Linux-guru crowd continues to discount the complexity of installation, maintenance, use, and actual cost of Linux-based OSes.
It would be a full time job to debunk these arguments over and over again. Occasionally, Dan takes the time to do just this: see him dismantle another one of Joe Landman’s CCS attack pieces in Yet another poof piece. And Dan doesn’t even mention the developer-productivity story . . .
Personally, I tend to ignore the “I hate Microsoft, Linux is the answer to everything” arguments. You can build a feasible solution with either platform. As Dan said in his post (specifically about HPC):
Look, I’m not deriding Linux as an OS, or as an HPC OS. It’s been very successful, and it will continue to have success.
The fact is: if you’re using UNIX or Linux, it probably doesn’t make sense to port to Windows.
But if you’re already using Windows, it certainly doesn’t make sense to port to Linux.
They are different toolboxes full of different (albeit similar and overlapping) tools. Depending on all sorts of criteria, different organizations will do better with one platform than the other.
There is huge growth potential in the market for both platforms. Can’t we just get past this?
Or has this truly become a religion?
Tags: .NET, CCS, Digipede, grid, HPC, Linux, Microsoft, Windows
January 19, 2007 at 3:28 am · Filed under Miscellaneous
Andrew Hilton recently commented on WinFx is Dead Part 2. I am promoting it to a post so I can better comment on the comments.
Andrew says:
I’m of the opinion that it is not yet the official windows API because it simply wasn’t ready, and using .NET 2 with WinForms would have been too restrictive and no doubt would not have integrated with the subsystems of Vista (such as graphics). The .NET framework 3.0 was not released until almost the final release of Vista. The risk of developing the windows front end under the managed API and still ship on time would have been too great.
I think you are correct regarding the .NET 3.0 components of WinFx: there was an early plan that Vista and Office would take advantage of these technologies, but of course, everything was late. Using .NET the .NET 2 WinForms really didn’t make sense either.
From what I’ve heard early versions of Vista and Office 2007 did use the managed API (or at least an early version of WPF). My feeling is that the dev teams simply couldn’t cope with a large framework like that shifting beneath their feet causing all manner of chaos. Hence the move by both Vista and Office 2007 back to COM, which also gave leeway to the WinFX teams to change stuff radically if they needed to. My assumption is that given the large technical leap of WPF, WCF etc there would have been many back steps as they were trying to go forward.
Yeah, but I’ll bet the delays of .NET 2 had a bigger impact on the likelihood of managed APIs in Vista than, let’s say, WPF or WCF.
I’ll be very suprised if the consumer version of Vista does not include some managed code WPF apps. All the indications are that WPF will do very well (for example see the recent video of the WPF version of Yahoo messenger), . . .
Yes, I think this is all true, but hold on.
My post wasn’t about .NET 3.0 (or what they were calling WinFx), but of the original idea for WinFx: a full (or fairly full) Windows API.
WPF and WCF have little to do with that, certainly WF has nothing to do with it, and Info Cards, not really either. Of course, this last one is a part of Vista though as kind of an add on.
All of this stuff is very cool, but WinFx was supposed to push managed APIs deeper down into the OS, not to be extra layers on top of it. The internalization of these APIs were to supply a more robust and secure OS.
And it is that WinFx that appears to be dead.
Tags: .NET, .NET3, InfoCards, Microsoft, WCF, WF, Windows, WinFx, WPF
November 8, 2006 at 3:48 pm · Filed under Miscellaneous
I thought it would still be a couple of weeks, but it has happened. I wonder when it’ll be on MSDN. Anybody know?
Tags: Microsoft, Vista, Windows
October 15, 2006 at 7:19 pm · Filed under .NET
After I posted WinFx is Dead, I’ve gotten two kinds of comments:
Didn’t you hear that WinFx has been renamed .NET 3.0? What rock have you been hiding under?
Well, yes, I have heard that — my point wasn’t that the name WinFx is dead, it is that the concept of WinFx is dead.
Really, Microsoft has killed the managed Windows API?
What, am I psychic?
I have no idea if Microsoft has killed the managed Windows API. It appears to me that they have. The stated reason for the name change was to clear up confusion in the marketplace. The common belief seems to be that this confusion was that developers didn’t understand how WinFx related to .NET. I believe that the actual confusion was that developers didn’t understand how WinFx (as composed of WCF, WPF, WF, etc.) had anything to do with a managed Windows API.
I am guessing that this name change away from WinFx is indicates that the managed Windows API is dead. John goes further in comment on this post (full comment here):
. . . Microsoft continues to vacilate on this issue. I hear Microsoft execs stand up and proclaim that everything is .NET. Then I see product teams create products without the slightest nod to .NET, using a patchwork of unmanaged code and interfaces dating back to the (early) COM days.
So, Microsoft: you may think that the name change cleared up some confusion. Maybe it did. But as a Microsoft ISV, Gold certified partner, developer, I’ll tell you that I’m confused about how .NET actually fits into the overall product plans.
Tags: .NET, .NET3.0, Microsoft, Windows, WinFx
October 9, 2006 at 8:24 am · Filed under .NET
From mdavey: Longhorn “Server Core” doesn’t have .NET? No managed code.
From the referenced article, Server Core Program Manager
(Andrew) Mason says his development team wants to add the .NET Framework to Server Core, but they first need the Framework team to modularize the code so they can add just the essentials.
Another example of the left-hand not being coordinated with the right. I know I’m mixing metaphors, but it has continued to baffle me that it is taking Microsoft so long to adopt managed code.
Now I think I understand why. And the WinFx to .NET 3.0 name change illustrates the point well:
- WinFx was purported to be the new Windows API. This claim, while supported by various parts of Microsoft was never internalized by the product teams.
- This is actually the message that was confusing people. Customers / developers were not asking “what is WinFx?”, as much as they were asking, “where is the new managed Windows API, WinFx?”.
- But there is no managed Windows API. Managed code is not a core part of the OS (and may never be).
- So, to avoid the topic, WinFx gets killed. Not just the name, but the entire idea of a managed Windows API. Sure, the components of WinFx get shifted to .NET 3.0.
I have posted before that I am OK with the name change. I am, but I am not OK with the death of the managed Windows API.
Now (of course) this blog is all my own opinion, but I want to point out that this is purely an outsiders view of what is going on at Microsoft. As far as I know I am completely mistaken and next week Microsoft will announce some new effort to provide a fully managed API. Or not.
Tags: .NET, .NET3.0, Microsoft, Windows, WinFx
April 26, 2006 at 10:41 am · Filed under Miscellaneous
Nick Bradbury has an excellent post on how Dvorak is wrong about Internet Explorer (perhaps Dvorak is reading Kevin Burton’s blog).
I agree with Mr. Bradbury on the value that Microsoft brings to developers by making IE easily embeddable into applications. Having this capability built into the OS makes it all the easier for the distribution of new products without the weight of an IE install.
So, yes, I too am glad that Windows has a browser. I do wish it were better and easier to extend; but, I think IE7 will help us there too.
Tags: Dvorak, IE, IE7, Windows
February 14, 2006 at 8:33 pm · Filed under Web 2.0
I generally use Microsoft Windows and I mostly use desktop apps.
I have to admit: I often get annoyed with Web-based UI. Even that with the slickest use of AJAX. Even with WordPress, the application I am using right now.
And what is my problem?
- Losing my form data if I hit the backspace at the wrong time?
- Managing application-related pop-up windows?
- Discerning what some little non-standard icon means?
- Actually getting my mouse over that tiny icon?
Nope.
It is that the right mouse button has nothing to do with the specific page I’m on. Occasionally I find myself right-clicking and going “doh, this isn’t a Windows desktop application.” I miss having context-related options available with a right-click of the mouse (and no, I don’t just mean “copy this link”, etc.).
Of course, until recently, the Macintosh had no right mouse button. Or left button for that matter. Just one.
So all these Macintosh users look at the Web applications (Web 2.0 or not) and they are much like Macintosh desktop applications. See a button: click on it. See a menu. Click on it.
This limitation we Windows users perceive in browser-based apps just isn’t there for Mac users.
So Microsoft, and Robert Scoble in particular, I think you guys might be missing this point regarding Web 2.0. If you want to get more involved in Web 2.0, forget Live and Office Live; instead, start shipping single button mice. I know it might seem like a me-too mid-1980’s strategy, but you never know.
Tags: Macintosh, Microsoft, Web2.0, Windows
About me
Main feed
Email subscriptions
