Coffeehouse Thread

15 posts

Open letter from Jim Alchin and a question

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Aargau

    "As I said, the opportunity will be tremendous. If you want to ride the wave we're creating with Windows Vista, the best way is to have your application ready by the time we ship! And that is very soon. "

    Just a quick question, what mainstream apps are Microsoft releasing or have  released that are written in .NET of any version?

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    Aargau wrote:
    Just a quick question, what mainstream apps are Microsoft releasing or have  released that are written in .NET of any version?

    Not many. The reasons for that are twofold (fancy words day, here):

    1. the framework is not ubiquitous yet and it's a fairly heavy download. This issue is going to go away with Vista and improved broadband penetration.

    2. most of Microsoft's code predates the .NET initiative. There are exactly zero good business reasons to ditch a codebase and rewrite it in *anything* else just because you can.

    That said, there are some .NET developments going on right now, mostly new projects (see #2) or low-profile/high-impact apps, like Windows Live Writer.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Not trying to sound mean or degrading but how does this explain Microsofts decision to drop a tried, true, tested network stack in favor of a brand new stack?

    PaoloM wrote:
    

    2. most of Microsoft's code predates the .NET initiative. There are exactly zero good business reasons to ditch a codebase and rewrite it in *anything* else just because you can.

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    tell me if this sounds right:

    if microsoft pushes developers to move to .NET it will be easier to make major changes to the core of the windows OS, because applications will be more virtualized

  • User profile image
    Mark Brown

    Aargau wrote:
    

    "As I said, the opportunity will be tremendous. If you want to ride the wave we're creating with Windows Vista, the best way is to have your application ready by the time we ship! And that is very soon. "

    Just a quick question, what mainstream apps are Microsoft releasing or have  released that are written in .NET of any version?



    Being ready for Windows Vista does not mean the application is written in .NET. Here's some info

    An example of a Microsoft application written in .NET (3.0 even) is Microsoft Max. Just released an update and not too shabby either. Even has an RSS reader built in.

  • User profile image
    Aargau

    Respectfully on point 1, having Vista out won't mean most systems will have migrated to it, for at least 12 months. It also means you won't be cutting off XP systems for at least 3 years. So we're stuck with the heavy download for at least that time period.

    Honestly, I'm not quite understanding the mixed message Microsoft sends on .NET. On one hand there are great development tools, on the other .NET isn't even a required download for XP, nor do we get to piggyback on Microsoft apps that are written on it so a large percent of people will already have .NET.

    It makes the decision much harder on something I wish were a no brainer.

  • User profile image
    Charles

    ASP.NET is 99% composed of .NET code... Is ASP.NET a mainstream application? Yes. Further, I'd imagine that websites built on ASP.NET count, right? What about web services? And have you ever heard of Visual Studio 2003/2005?

    ...

    Many new applications do in fact incorporate a .NET component, especially in the case of UI (MOM, SQL 2005, Virtualization management, etc, etc)

    C

  • User profile image
    Aargau

    >ASP.NET is 99% composed of .NET code... Is ASP.NET a mainstream application? Yes. Further, I'd imagine that websites built on ASP.NET count, right? What about web services? And have you ever heard of Visual Studio 2003/2005?

    Perhaps,  but none of those involve getting the .NET runtime down to consumer desktops. So no, they don't count for us Wink

    The biggest problem we have as an independent software developer writing in .NET is that people are daunted by a 26 meg download for what is otherwise a very small windows forms application. We were promised .NET runtime ubiquity by Microsoft quite a few years ago, and looking at the trending data (hard numbers on how many of our customers have .NET) it's nowhere near ubiquity.

    Each time you place a hurdle in front of customers, you're going to lose a percent of them. I'd just like there to be that one less hurdle, especially when giving up cross platform code bases and embracing the Microsoft solution.

  • User profile image
    kriskdf

    rjdohnert wrote:
    Not trying to sound mean or degrading but how does this explain Microsofts decision to drop a tried, true, tested network stack in favor of a brand new stack?

    PaoloM wrote: 

    2. most of Microsoft's code predates the .NET initiative. There are exactly zero good business reasons to ditch a codebase and rewrite it in *anything* else just because you can.



    I believe (and I don't work anywhere near this group) that the new stack is rewritten to support IPV6 better.

  • User profile image
    KevinB

    Aargau wrote:
    

    Just a quick question, what mainstream apps are Microsoft releasing or have  released that are written in .NET of any version?



    Sparkle, or whatever it is called now, the Expression suite of tools.

    I mean there is a suite that Microsoft are betting big, and it is built on .NET and WPF.

    Monad, or AFIAK it is now called Powershell.

    There is again another massive project, going to be shipped and used with Exchange 2007 and written purely in .NET.

    And then there are all the other projects that Charles mentioned, that, whilst not written entirely in .NET, lots of the new features being added ARE written in .NET.

    I don't want Microsoft to start rewriting existing code in .NET just for the sake of it, it doesn't make sense and it wouldn't necessarily make my computing experience any better.

    Kevin

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    Max. OK not very main stream, but cool Smiley

  • User profile image
    Stebet

    rjdohnert wrote:
    Not trying to sound mean or degrading but how does this explain Microsofts decision to drop a tried, true, tested network stack in favor of a brand new stack?

    PaoloM wrote: 

    2. most of Microsoft's code predates the .NET initiative. There are exactly zero good business reasons to ditch a codebase and rewrite it in *anything* else just because you can.



    I think i remember reading somewhere that the old network stack was missing a lot of plumbing, extensibility and automation required for effective network activities and security. Also, i think the old network stack was optimized for a certain bandwidth (can't remember if it was modem or typical LAN) but the new stack is able to adapt to different bandwidths and automatically configure a lot of things such as windows size, MTU's etc.

    In a sense the new network stack should utilize your bandwidth a lot better as well as provide the plumbing required for better security measures.

    B.t.w, other than Symantecs outdated "research" on Vista's new networking stack i don't think anyone has found anything wrong with it yet. The networking stack is certainly something that i would like to see revised fairly often since network traffic tends to change dramatically every few years (P2P, BitTorrent are obvious examples).

    Edit: Found this link. It explains what's new and why the network stack needed to be redesigned.

  • User profile image
    Andrew Webber FX

    I would just like to add that what does concern a lot of .NET developers is the 'Reflector' problem. Even with obfuscation IP is easier to decode into code files than ever before. Could this be a reason for some of MS (IP weary folks) non adoption in some areas.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    Aargau wrote:
    Honestly, I'm not quite understanding the mixed message Microsoft sends on .NET.

    I don't know, it sounds pretty clear to me... if you want to develop great application for Windows, the best way to do it is using the .NET framework and tools.

    If you have existing codebases, there's little advantage in converting them.
    Aargau wrote:
    On one hand there are great development tools, on the other .NET isn't even a required download for XP, nor do we get to piggyback on Microsoft apps that are written on it so a large percent of people will already have .NET.

    Well, there are very specific reasons that didn't make .NET a mandatory update for XP. Reasons that have little to do with technology and a lot to do with courts Smiley

  • User profile image
    KevinB

    PaoloM wrote:
    
    If you have existing codebases, there's little advantage in converting them.


    Something tells me MS PR wouldn't want it worded quite like that lol.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.