Massive Silverlight Deployment | The Coffeehouse

nightski

This has been showing up in the news lately -

http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/01/Silverlight-Olympic;jsessionid=8000A88C59A11F2E88554F03E62FA4BF

It is great news for the Silverlight platform. What do you think - risky move for NBC? 2.0 isn't even out in beta form yet. I gotta say though, I am really looking forward to the 2.0 beta.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

creditcard wrote:
Microsoft's attempts at creating proprietary frameworks and technologies on top of the Internet have always failed in the past. If this is successful it would mean millions of deployments of Silverlight. Keep in mind this is Silverlight 2.0, not the current version out, which is both slow and crappy in many ways, and sees almost no use on the Internet. Silverlight 2.0 has the ability of being of appealing to many more developers since programming is based on .NET, not JavaScript like the current version.

I am trying very hard to find a point in this post, but...

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

creditcard wrote:

PaoloM wrote:
creditcard wrote:Microsoft's attempts at creating proprietary frameworks and technologies on top of the Internet have always failed in the past. If this is successful it would mean millions of deployments of Silverlight. Keep in mind this is Silverlight 2.0, not the current version out, which is both slow and crappy in many ways, and sees almost no use on the Internet. Silverlight 2.0 has the ability of being of appealing to many more developers since programming is based on .NET, not JavaScript like the current version.

I am trying very hard to find a point in this post, but...

Well, you fail. Better luck next year.

Key points:
Silverlight 1 sucks, Silverlight 2 might not suck, Microsoft has a bad track record of success with things like this.

Agreed

harumscarum
out of memory

well best of luck to nbc and silverlight.

So active x was a failure?

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

harumscarum wrote:
So active x was a failure?

Apparently.

Xaero_Vincent
Sexy me

Hopefully Moonlight will be ready by then so its not a platform-dependent experience.

Still, I see little advantage over using Flash for streaming video when it now supports HD video and audio via H.264 and AAC.

Vasudev

This will be a big boost for SIlverlight.
I hope by that time (Aug08), everything will be smoothned to have a very rich content streamed live.
Somasegar's weblog2008 Olympics and Silverlight

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

PaoloM wrote:

harumscarum wrote:So active x was a failure?

Apparently.

When the world has pretty much moved on to Firefox's plugins and even IE7 having to lock down the access of the OS from ActiveX controls....yeah from what it's intentional purpose was I would say it's a failure.

drhowarddrfine

http://shippingseven.blogspot.com/2008/01/another-one.html

Random thoughts from somebody working on the next Windows OS

Silverlight - A rewrite of WPF in unmanaged code; small, fast, excellently written. But probably too little, too late to make WPF and XAML relevant to the internet.

Ray6

Cybermagellan wrote:

PaoloM wrote:
harumscarum wrote:So active x was a failure?

Apparently.

When the world has pretty much moved on to Firefox's plugins and even IE7 having to lock down the access of the OS from ActiveX controls....yeah from what it's intentional purpose was I would say it's a failure.

Can't think of any component framework that is as widely supported as ActiveX; perhaps Java, but then I see fewer Java components deployed on the desktop ...

The problem is that ActiveX is a desktop technology, that MS tried to shoehorn onto the web in order to head off the perceived threat from Java. As it turned out, this turned into a security nightmare. But if you're talking about its intentional purpose, I don't think it was ever designed for the web, but as component frameworks go, it was extremely successful.

AndyC

Ray6 wrote:

Can't think of any component framework that is as widely supported as ActiveX; perhaps Java, but then I see fewer Java components deployed on the desktop ...

Java, at least in IE, is an ActiveX control. As is Flash.

cornelius

creditcard wrote:
Microsoft's attempts at creating proprietary frameworks and technologies on top of the Internet have always failed in the past. If this is successful it would mean millions of deployments of Silverlight. Keep in mind this is Silverlight 2.0, not the current version out, which is both slow and crappy in many ways, and sees almost no use on the Internet. Silverlight 2.0 has the ability of being of appealing to many more developers since programming is based on .NET, not JavaScript like the current version.

lol so XMLhttpRequest is a failure?

the current bubble 2.0 is based on a microsoft technology bhoy

figuerres
???

creditcard wrote:
Microsoft's attempts at creating proprietary frameworks and technologies on top of the Internet have always failed in the past. If this is successful it would mean millions of deployments of Silverlight. Keep in mind this is Silverlight 2.0, not the current version out, which is both slow and crappy in many ways, and sees almost no use on the Internet. Silverlight 2.0 has the ability of being of appealing to many more developers since programming is based on .NET, not JavaScript like the current version.

ASP (Classic with VB or JavaScript)

ASP.NET (1.0 -- 3.5)

wow huge failures Perplexed

also IIS on WIndows Server ...

Exchange Server ?? it does SMTP POP3 and IMAP

they failed also ??

I bet there are a few other failures that one or two companies use.... like no one uses Exchnage, IIS or ASP.NET right ?
cause they all suck Perplexed

drhowarddrfine

cornelius wrote:

lol so XMLhttpRequest is a failure?

Your basis of success is on one Javascript function?

cornelius wrote:

the current bubble 2.0 is based on a microsoft technology bhoy

Uh, you don't know what "web 2.0" is, do you?

drhowarddrfine

figuerres wrote:

ASP (Classic with VB or JavaScript)

ASP.NET (1.0 -- 3.5)

wow huge failures

Microsoft dumped ASP for ASP.NET. ASP.NET was considered by many as bad, but much improved in 2.0.

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

creditcard wrote:
XHMLHttpRequest isn't a proprietary technology, it's a W3C standard.

Bless...

[Read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest and learn, young grasshopper]

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

Well, let's get it right then, it's a Microsoft Invention that, 6 years after its invention, and several years after being adopted by everyone, and becoming a de-facto standard, finally got adopted by the w3c who just got around to producing a draft minimal spec for (which appears to still be a draft spec.)

It's still a Microsoft invention. And it was still popular before the w3c got around to looking at it.

Ray6

creditcard wrote:

Massif wrote:
creditcard wrote:XHMLHttpRequest isn't a proprietary technology, it's a W3C standard.

Bless...

Exactly, it's a future W3C standard. Just because Google is contributing to HTML 5 doesn't make it less of a current or future W3C standard (or as W3bbo would say, a "recommendation").

I can see what you're saying, but you're still wrong I'm afraid.

The last four websites I visited were all ASP.NET pages, and I think there may a few others. I think that counts as proprietary technology that is enjoying some success.