Now Microsoft Office must compete based on merit rather than file format compatibility and OpenOffice.org must compete based on merit rather than "use us because our format is open".
(From what I've seen of Office 12, Microsoft wins that battle with ease.)
Beer28 wrote:I honestly think it's a little irrelevant to microsoft whether people upgrade soon or not.
They had to release a new OS no matter what, it's been 5+ years now since the last cycle. They've had to sit there all this time and watch OSX and Linux speed right by them with 6 month turnovers.
And there's no "compelling" reason to upgrade to those OSX or Linux releases either (not any more than there is to upgrade to Vista, anyway). I've not upgraded my Mac to OSX 10.4 and have no plans to. Apple charges too much and too often for their incremental releases, so I now have a policy to upgrade OSX only every two releases (if even that).
Interesting memo, but writing software in order to sell ad space doesn't sound exciting to me in the least. Then again, neither does writing software that runs on phones.
iStation wrote:Is new CLisp.NET included in VS2005 as in VS2003?
I hope VS2005 contains CLisp.NET interpreter, not compiler...
Computer Aids for VLSI Design
CLisp is fun to play around with as a toy, but not up to the task of real work IMO. Sadly, there isn't any serious .NET Lisp. I'd say the best functional programming language for .NET is F#, bar none.
The problem with most programmers is they don't know Lisp (or any langauge other than the C family). C++/C# stole from Lisp - catch, throw, and finally (unwind-protect in Lisp) are all Lisp concepts.
"Stole"? "Adopted" is the word that you're looking for.
(Sorry, over the years I've grown wary of the confrontational tone that geeks use so much. )
BTW, I'd say that closures are a better example of a feature C# has borrowed from Lisp than exception handling. There's nothing really "lispish" about exception handling.
geekling wrote:The user interface is nice, but I really wanna see some back-end improvements: pluggable interfaces so WMP can "properly" support formats like .ogg, .ogm, .mov and .rm with third-party plugins.
I mean *real* support, too, like plugins being able to make WMP register itself with those file formats, play them properly, know how to convert them to supported formats for portable audio/video devices using WMP's sync feature...
The Next Generation (doo doo da doo!)
Won't WMP work with any format for which a DirectShow filter is installed in the system? I think Apple and Real refuse to make DirectShow filters for .mov and .rm, and OSS devs refuse to do the same for .ogg. Am I wrong in thinking this?
JChung2006 wrote:If that's true, then why was one of the selling points of Visual Studio 2005 the fact that you could build Windows Forms applications that looked like... Office 2003?
As I said "Now, if one wants to make his app look like Office because he thinks it's a better or cooler UI than standard Windows, so be it, but he can't expect the OS, .NET, or VS to provide the UI for free (not for awhile, at least), so he'd have to mimic the Office UI on his own."
Note the qualifier.
Generally, the platform teams (be they Windows, .NET, or VS) provide Office-like UI widgets two years after the release of Office in which they first appeared. It's been this way since at least Office 97 (actually, since WinWord 2 and 1993's Excel). Office serves as one of the sources of UI R&D for the platform teams.
Tensor wrote:So at last, the controls that come with VS are sufficiently MS Office-like to please people who want to make there apps look office-like. Hurray!
And then they radically change the office GUI.
Will there be a ribbon / gallery control with vs 2005, or will we have to decided between buying a 3rd party one and looking like last years office app?
Office doesn't use the standard Windows UI and hasn't since Office 97 (I still don't see many apps that treat the menu as a toolbar that can be docked anywhere or left undocked, as Office has done since Office 97). So, if a developer has a goal to make his app look like a "standard" Windows app, he would not use Office as the example to follow. Now, if one wants to make his app look like Office because he thinks it's a better or cooler UI than standard Windows, so be it, but he can't expect the OS, .NET, or VS to provide the UI for free (not for awhile, at least), so he'd have to mimic the Office UI on his own.