Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.

If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
applications does Microsoft code in .Net?

I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the performance
sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's Plan Plus for
Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The UI performance
sucks.

I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net was
one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks like
will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows Me, Vista
or .Net.

Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are run
by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they just
lie about them.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.

But other software vendors are devloping solutions in .Net for Vista.

http://www.bestvistadownloads.com/

>
> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
> applications does Microsoft code in .Net?

Why should MS develop existing applications it has in .NET? You know the old
saying, if its not broke, then you don't fix it. And anyone would be a fool
to be converting existing code, if it's not need and has no Return On
Investment or ROI.

>
> I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
> performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's
> Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The
> UI performance sucks.

You no more know what you're talking about than the man in the Moon.

>
> I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
> was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
> like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
> Me, Vista or .Net.

You do know that .Net is a standard don't you?

You do know that there are many other languages that use the .Net platform?

http://www.startvbdotnet.com/dotnet/languages.aspx

..Net has been very good to me and is putting some serious $$$$ in my pockets
on the contract I am working on at this time. And I getting calls from the
East/West coasts and from the North/South borders in the US to work on .NET
protects.

>
> Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
> run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
> just lie about them.

You're a troll and you are entitled to your worthless dime a dozen opinions,
because everyone has got one.

And you are a fool if you think Vista is going anywhere.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=785

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
news:u9VSqLsAIHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
>
> But other software vendors are devloping solutions in .Net for Vista.
>
> http://www.bestvistadownloads.com/
>
>>
>> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
>> applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
>
> Why should MS develop existing applications it has in .NET? You know the
> old saying, if its not broke, then you don't fix it. And anyone would be a
> fool to be converting existing code, if it's not need and has no Return On
> Investment or ROI.

I agree. No need to rewrite apps just to rewrite them. But what about new
desktop apps for Windows? Can you name *any* applictions that do
significant work (i.e. that are data or process intensive) that use .Net -
even better one that's written by Microsoft? Can you name any that perform
as quickly or as stable as their C++\VB6 predecessors?

>
>>
>> I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
>> performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin
>> Covey's Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I
>> mean. The UI performance sucks.
>
> You no more know what you're talking about than the man in the Moon.

I own these apps. I run them on a 3.06 GHz dual core processor with 4 GB
RAM and 2 500 GB hard drives on a fully optimized system. Core CPU
utilization is minimal and they run like molasses.

If you have a real response to these observations, I would be happy to hear
it.

>
>>
>> I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
>> was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
>> like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
>> Me, Vista or .Net.
>
> You do know that .Net is a standard don't you?

Sure. One designed to sell more software that was never needed in the first
place. Like you said, "if its not broke, then you don't fix it."

>
> You do know that there are many other languages that use the .Net
> platform?

I also know that there are many countires that use communism and socialism
as models for their governments. That doesn't mean that they are good, just
because they are being used. And, it doesn't mean that the people forced to
use them don't suffer because of it - just like most programmers under .Net.

> .Net has been very good to me and is putting some serious $$$$ in my
> pockets on the contract I am working on at this time. And I getting calls
> from the East/West coasts and from the North/South borders in the US to
> work on .NET protects.

So, a language is good becaue it puts money in your pockets at the expense
of usability and productivity of the end users? How nice for you.

I used to be a code whore myself. Then I grew a backbone and decided to
make an honest living. You should try it. It does wonders for your self
image - and wallet.

>
>>
>> Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
>> run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
>> just lie about them.
>
> You're a troll and you are entitled to your worthless dime a dozen
> opinions, because everyone has got one.

I am a troll? Is that because I don't bow down at the Microsoft alter and
worship without questioning the logic of detroying personal (and
professional) productivity? Or is it because you feel like I am attacking
your meal ticket?

>
> And you are a fool if you think Vista is going anywhere.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=785
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

4 of your 5 links have to do with IIS7, not Vista. If you cannot tell the
difference, IIS7 is an application, Vista is an OS. While IIS7 will only
run on Vista and Longhorn Servers and offers more support for .Net
applications, it is still not written in .Net. Why not? Because .Net
cannot handle the speed needed for IIS7.

And, since IIS7 is primarily an application for hosting websites, most users
will never see or use it directly. So, where is this killer .Net
application from Microsoft? IIS7 is neither a killer desktop app, nor is it
written in .Net nor will it sway everyday users to adopt Vista.

If you want to know the fate of Vista - even Microsoft is backpeddling on
this one......
http://www.news.com/Microsoft-extends-Windows-XPs-stay/2100- 1016_3-6210524.html?tag=nefd.top .

Now, if you could kindly stop name calling long enough to evoke some
similance of logical thought, I would be most interested in your reply.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
>
> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
> applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
>
> I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
> performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's
> Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The
> UI performance sucks.
>
> I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
> was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
> like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
> Me, Vista or .Net.
>
> Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
> run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
> just lie about them.
>
> jim
>

Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005, and
more in VS 2008.

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

..NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications. There
are some .NET bits in SQL Server, which performs fine, however. You also see
some .NET in Office and a few other applications.

I am not sure about Symantec AV, Plan Plus or Neat Receipts. I have,
however, seen some very fine UIs written in .NET. I am also not sure what
version of windows you are looking at, how much memory, etc. Without having
specs, it is hard to blame .NET for the suckage.

Microsoft does have some bits in Vista that are .NET. They did back off the
"SQL Server as file system" push, at least for now, and you do not see a
major .NET UI piece.

It would seem like MS is not embracing .NET, but you have to remember most
of the programs that are on the market have been in multiple year cycles, so
your statements will be more fair in a year or two. If MS still does not
invest in .NET for their own product, the argument will bear more weight.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************************************************
| Think outside the box!
|
*************************************************
"jim" wrote in message
news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
>
> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
> applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
>
> I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
> performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's
> Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The
> UI performance sucks.
>
> I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
> was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
> like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
> Me, Vista or .Net.
>
> Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
> run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
> just lie about them.
>
> jim
>

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

On 29/09/2007 in message Cowboy
(Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:

>.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications

It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications than
desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on that. I
wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming version?

--
Jeff Gaines

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
news:xn0fbseegooydj001@msnews.microsoft.com...
> On 29/09/2007 in message Cowboy
> (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>
>>.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>
> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications than
> desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on that. I
> wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming version?

Many companies are using .Net solutions like .NET Service and Console
applications to do back-end processing. I have developed some of them
myself. I have also developed Web application as well. I have also developed
Windows desktop solutions that are using .Net remoting that are in
communications with a IIS Web server as an application gateway. More and
more solutions for .Net are coming to the Windows desktop, but I would say
that's mostly in a corporate or medium to small business environment.

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

PvdG42 wrote:
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
>>
>> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what
>> desktop applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
>>
>> I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
>> performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin
>> Covey's Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I
>> mean. The UI performance sucks.
>>
>> I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it....
>> .Net was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and
>> looks like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that
>> Windows Me, Vista or .Net.
>>
>> Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies
>> are run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make
>> them, they just lie about them.
>>
>> jim
>>
>
> Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005,
> and more in VS 2008.

Compared to VB6 and the pre-.Net Visual Studio, it's slow and clunky.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 29/09/2007 in message Cowboy
> (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>
>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>
> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming version?
>

That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being
to use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal
tools and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool set
that they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS and one
for real-world developers designing for the desktop.

Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about the
code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end users.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Mr. Arnold wrote:
>
> "Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
> news:xn0fbseegooydj001@msnews.microsoft.com...
>> On 29/09/2007 in message
>> Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>
>>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>>
>> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
>> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
>> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
>> version?
>
> Many companies are using .Net solutions like .NET Service and Console
> applications to do back-end processing. I have developed some of them
> myself. I have also developed Web application as well. I have also
> developed Windows desktop solutions that are using .Net remoting that
> are in communications with a IIS Web server as an application gateway.
> More and more solutions for .Net are coming to the Windows desktop, but
> I would say that's mostly in a corporate or medium to small business
> environment.

With all due respect Mr. Arnold, this is one of the problems.

What made Windows great was the ability of the goal oriented developers
(mostly hobbyist and part-time programmers) to develop "cool" and "must
have" applications for the OS. Corporate software is usually bloated
and lacking in features that end users (both novice and hard core) are
thirsting for.

Visual Basic *made* Windows. With .Net, Microsoft has abandoned g.o.d.
(goal oriented developers). And, one thing a successful OS or software
venture must never do is turn its back on g.o.d. like Microsoft did when
they killed VB6.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:yRCLi.83915$Lu.66118@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> PvdG42 wrote:
>> Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005,
>> and more in VS 2008.
>
> Compared to VB6 and the pre-.Net Visual Studio, it's slow and clunky.
>
> jim


So, you use Visual Studio? Exactly what kinds of applications do you
develop? As I use it daily and have not experienced the vague symptoms you
cite, I'm wondering if you actually use the product, or is this more of your
rumor mongering?

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:NYCLi.83920$Lu.81328@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Mr. Arnold wrote:
>>
>> "Jeff Gaines" wrote in message
>> news:xn0fbseegooydj001@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>> On 29/09/2007 in message Cowboy
>>> (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>>>
>>> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
>>> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
>>> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
>>> version?
>>
>> Many companies are using .Net solutions like .NET Service and Console
>> applications to do back-end processing. I have developed some of them
>> myself. I have also developed Web application as well. I have also
>> developed Windows desktop solutions that are using .Net remoting that are
>> in communications with a IIS Web server as an application gateway. More
>> and more solutions for .Net are coming to the Windows desktop, but I
>> would say that's mostly in a corporate or medium to small business
>> environment.
>
> With all due respect Mr. Arnold, this is one of the problems.
>
> What made Windows great was the ability of the goal oriented developers
> (mostly hobbyist and part-time programmers) to develop "cool" and "must
> have" applications for the OS. Corporate software is usually bloated and
> lacking in features that end users (both novice and hard core) are
> thirsting for.

Well, I have to assume that you have never faced a corporate end-user base
wanting speed in application execution or faced a manager needing speed of
execuition with said application developed. Man, I have been doing this for
20 some pluse years. And I started when Apple was in a wodden box.
>
> Visual Basic *made* Windows. With .Net, Microsoft has abandoned g.o.d.
> (goal oriented developers). And, one thing a successful OS or software
> venture must never do is turn its back on g.o.d. like Microsoft did when
> they killed VB6.
>
>

If you want speed of execution, then one uses VC++ 6 and not VB 6, which I
have had many years of writing VB 6 applications. Nothing against VB 6 as I
enjoyed working with the language for several years. The day I moved away
from VB 6 is the best thing I could have done. VB6 is dead and only exist
for existing legacy applications.

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:0VCLi.83917$Lu.23427@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 29/09/2007 in message Cowboy
>> (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>
>>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>>
>> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
>> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
>> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
>> version?
>>
>
> That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
> their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
> everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being to
> use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal tools
> and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool set that
> they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS and one for
> real-world developers designing for the desktop.
>
> Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about the
> code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end users.
>

You do know that MS doesn't own .Net? That's right MS gave it all away. The
reason .Net even exist is because of the fallout between Sun Micro Systems
and MS about the use of Java by MS. VB.Net is proprietary to MS.

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Mr. Arnold wrote:
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:0VCLi.83917$Lu.23427@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2007 in message
>>> Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>>>
>>> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
>>> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
>>> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
>>> version?
>>>
>>
>> That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
>> their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
>> everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being
>> to use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal
>> tools and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool
>> set that they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS
>> and one for real-world developers designing for the desktop.
>>
>> Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about
>> the code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end users.
>>
>
> You do know that MS doesn't own .Net? That's right MS gave it all away.
> The reason .Net even exist is because of the fallout between Sun Micro
> Systems and MS about the use of Java by MS. VB.Net is proprietary to MS.

Microsoft does own .Net and has the trademarks to the .Net name.

Let's let Microsoft speak for itself, shall we? "Microsoft .NET is a
brand associated with Microsoft technology. .NET is not a platform, an
application, or a service. Rather, it is a set of capabilities in
products that enables people, information, systems, and devices to
connect and exchange information seamlessly through the use of Web services.

The Microsoft .NET Connected logo program was developed to highlight
specific products that exhibit Web service connectivity through the use
of the .NET Framework, an integral component of the Windows operating
system. Products or services that meet the criteria to use the logo but
have chosen not to license the logo should use the phrase "Microsoft
..NET-connected" (but not the Microsoft .NET or Microsoft .NET Connected
logos) according to the guidelines set forth on this Web page."

This can be found at
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx.
You should really read it. They are quite specific about who can use
".Net" and how. Some of it may surprise you.

What Microsoft actually submitted to the ECMA (along with help from
Borland, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, International
Business Machines, ISE, IT University Copenhagen, Microsoft Corporation,
Monash University, Netscape, Novell Corporation, OpenWave, Plum Hall,
Sun Microsystems, and the University of Canterbury New Zealand ) was
actually 2 items - the CLI specification
(http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm)
and the C# specification
(http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm).

This was a brilliant move on Microsoft's part. It gave the illusion of
participating in open standards while placing a 6-9 month (as
Microsoft's own pages state at ) wait for any adoption of standards even
via the ECMA's Fast Track process.

This gives Microsoft a never-ending buffer of a minimum of 6-9 months
AFTER they propose changes to the standard (which they seem to do about
every 2 years).

This 6-9 months is just for the ECMA to "Fast Track" the changes to
..Net. Then, competing languages and IDEs must incorporate those changes
(add another 6-12 months) and then the coders must learn and incorporate
the changes into their new code (another 6-12 months).

That's a 18-36 month lead on the competition! What software company
wouldn't do that? And, it just so happens that .Net versions are coming
out in approx. 36 month intervals! Surprise, surprise, surprise! As
soon as the competition catches up - BAM! - Microsoft takes another step.

This has long been a (largely successful) business practice of
Microsoft's - distract and destroy. By keeping others chasing the
moving dot, they can happily work on other concepts and markets with
very little fear of anyone actually opposing them.

For instance, the good (but simple minded) folks over at Novell just
can't seem to wrap their tiny skulls around the notion that Mono will
ALWAYS be playing catch-up to Microsoft. That places Microsoft just
where they want to be - in control of the future of desktop computing.

The thing that I find strange is how willingly supposedly intelligent
people simply follow along like crack addicted sheep.

Linux distros had better wake up as well and start innovating instead of
following and trying to match Microsoft.

After all, who wants to match slow and clumsy feeling apps and OSs?

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

jim wrote:

> What Microsoft actually submitted to the ECMA (along with help from
> Borland, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, International
> Business Machines, ISE, IT University Copenhagen, Microsoft Corporation,
> Monash University, Netscape, Novell Corporation, OpenWave, Plum Hall,
> Sun Microsystems, and the University of Canterbury New Zealand ) was
> actually 2 items - the CLI specification
> (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm)
> and the C# specification
> (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm).

My apologies.....the C# ECMA link should have read
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm a-334.htm.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"PvdG42" wrote in message
news:eDemuKwAIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:yRCLi.83915$Lu.66118@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> PvdG42 wrote:
>>> Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005,
>>> and more in VS 2008.
>>
>> Compared to VB6 and the pre-.Net Visual Studio, it's slow and clunky.
>>
>> jim
>
>
> So, you use Visual Studio? Exactly what kinds of applications do you
> develop? As I use it daily and have not experienced the vague symptoms you
> cite, I'm wondering if you actually use the product, or is this more of
> your rumor mongering?

I only write ASP.Net webpages for communications coorporations and internal
desktop apps as a frontend for our sales and management teams. Currently
using Visual Studio .Net 2005 Pro with SQL Server 2005 and Oracle back ends.

But, I could just be making that up too. So, how about we stick to what we
can both prove.....that .Net UIs are slower than pre-.Net UIs?

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:2rFLi.83987$Lu.23727@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Mr. Arnold wrote:
>>
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:0VCLi.83917$Lu.23427@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2007 in message Cowboy
>>>> (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>>>>
>>>> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
>>>> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
>>>> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
>>>> version?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
>>> their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
>>> everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being
>>> to use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal
>>> tools and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool set
>>> that they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS and one
>>> for real-world developers designing for the desktop.
>>>
>>> Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about the
>>> code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end users.
>>>
>>
>> You do know that MS doesn't own .Net? That's right MS gave it all away.
>> The reason .Net even exist is because of the fallout between Sun Micro
>> Systems and MS about the use of Java by MS. VB.Net is proprietary to MS.
>
> Microsoft does own .Net and has the trademarks to the .Net name.
>
> Let's let Microsoft speak for itself, shall we? "Microsoft .NET is a brand
> associated with Microsoft technology. .NET is not a platform, an
> application, or a service. Rather, it is a set of capabilities in products
> that enables people, information, systems, and devices to connect and
> exchange information seamlessly through the use of Web services.

That's incorrect. XML allows this and not Web services, which can be used by
any type of .Net solution or non .Net solution. There is also .NET Biz Talk
server that allows .NET applications and applications running on mainframes
to communicate with each other through the use of XML over TCP that have
nothing to do with Web services, as an example. The key to cross platform
communications is through the use of XML. And XML is a key component of
..NET.

>
> The Microsoft .NET Connected logo program was developed to highlight
> specific products that exhibit Web service connectivity through the use of
> the .NET Framework, an integral component of the Windows operating system.
> Products or services that meet the criteria to use the logo but have
> chosen not to license the logo should use the phrase "Microsoft
> .NET-connected" (but not the Microsoft .NET or Microsoft .NET Connected
> logos) according to the guidelines set forth on this Web page."

..NET is not soley about Web solutions.
>
> This can be found at
> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx.
> You should really read it. They are quite specific about who can use
> ".Net" and how. Some of it may surprise you.
>
> What Microsoft actually submitted to the ECMA (along with help from
> Borland, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, International
> Business Machines, ISE, IT University Copenhagen, Microsoft Corporation,
> Monash University, Netscape, Novell Corporation, OpenWave, Plum Hall, Sun
> Microsystems, and the University of Canterbury New Zealand ) was actually
> 2 items - the CLI specification
> (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm)
> and the C# specification
> (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm).

Thank you, but I have already read that months ago maybe a year and a half
ago as to what was going to happen..

>
> This was a brilliant move on Microsoft's part. It gave the illusion of
> participating in open standards while placing a 6-9 month (as Microsoft's
> own pages state at ) wait for any adoption of standards even via the
> ECMA's Fast Track process.
>
> This gives Microsoft a never-ending buffer of a minimum of 6-9 months
> AFTER they propose changes to the standard (which they seem to do about
> every 2 years).
>
> This 6-9 months is just for the ECMA to "Fast Track" the changes to .Net.
> Then, competing languages and IDEs must incorporate those changes (add
> another 6-12 months) and then the coders must learn and incorporate the
> changes into their new code (another 6-12 months).
>
> That's a 18-36 month lead on the competition! What software company
> wouldn't do that? And, it just so happens that .Net versions are coming
> out in approx. 36 month intervals! Surprise, surprise, surprise! As soon
> as the competition catches up - BAM! - Microsoft takes another step.

Business is business and one tries to stay ahead of the competition. It's
Java that needs to catch-up to .Net. But Sun Micro Systems is sitting on
the ECMA .Net Standard committee dancing to MS's tune.
>
> This has long been a (largely successful) business practice of
> Microsoft's - distract and destroy. By keeping others chasing the moving
> dot, they can happily work on other concepts and markets with very little
> fear of anyone actually opposing them.

Again, business is business.
>
> For instance, the good (but simple minded) folks over at Novell just can't
> seem to wrap their tiny skulls around the notion that Mono will ALWAYS be
> playing catch-up to Microsoft. That places Microsoft just where they want
> to be - in control of the future of desktop computing.

Mono is solely for ASP.Net solutions the last time I looked. I don't think
Mono has anything to do with desktop solutions.

>
> The thing that I find strange is how willingly supposedly intelligent
> people simply follow along like crack addicted sheep.

They are going to dance to the MS tune just like they did with IBM when IBM
was the king. It's the nature of the beast. It's the old saying is that you
dance to the leader's tune. When some other compnay becomes the leader, they
will all dance to that compnay's tune.

>
> Linux distros had better wake up as well and start innovating instead of
> following and trying to match Microsoft.

There is no leader of Linux to push it with advertisement money. It's all a
grassroots movement. But Open Source and Linux have forced something like
..Net to be free for developers IMO, otherwise, developers will start jumping
ship on MS. Some have already done just that.

>
> After all, who wants to match slow and clumsy feeling apps and OSs?

If you think MS is going to fall or not dominate the market in your
lifetime, you have got another thing coming. :)

BTW, I sat in .Net training classes 8 hours a day for four weeks being
hammered on .NET, when the company I worked for at the time flew in a .Net
guru from India to train the client server developers.

MS is nothing compared to the mutil billons, billons, and billions more
billions then it needs company I use to work for.

I suggest you read the book *Rats in the Grain*, and the company is just as
cut throat and more cut throat than MS will ever be.

And Win 2k3 server, IIS7 and .NET are walking Linux and Apache down.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web _server_survey.html

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Microsoft does use .NET a lot, but it can't migrate every application
entirely to .NET, not to mention there are still some programmers in
Microsoft who aren't trained to use .NET.

Microsoft.com, MSDN, Live.com, Channel 9 and a lot of other websites of
Microsoft use ASP.NET. SQL Server Management Studio, Sharepoint (fully
..NET), the SBS 2003 tools, the Windows Media Center plug-in applications,
the API of Windows XP Tablet PC - all these are developed using the .NET
Framework. But the majority of Microsoft software only partially uses the
..NET Framework (for the newer components usually.)

By the way, you should check channel9.msdn.com - there are a lot of
discussions on .NET with the MS employees.

Andrew,
Geekpedia.com

"jim" wrote in message
news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
>
> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
> applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
>
> I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
> performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's
> Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The
> UI performance sucks.
>
> I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
> was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
> like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
> Me, Vista or .Net.
>
> Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
> run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
> just lie about them.
>
> jim
>

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Jim,

As it is as you write, why are you telling this, do it better, however keep
your mouth until you have achieved that.

Cor

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Hi Jim,


Here is my though:

If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.


Alberto

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
news:%23zOasPyAIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:2rFLi.83987$Lu.23727@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Mr. Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>> "jim" wrote in message
>>> news:0VCLi.83917$Lu.23427@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/2007 in message
>>>>> Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>>>>>
>>>>> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
>>>>> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
>>>>> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
>>>>> version?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
>>>> their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
>>>> everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being
>>>> to use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal
>>>> tools and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool set
>>>> that they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS and
>>>> one for real-world developers designing for the desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about the
>>>> code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end users.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do know that MS doesn't own .Net? That's right MS gave it all away.
>>> The reason .Net even exist is because of the fallout between Sun Micro
>>> Systems and MS about the use of Java by MS. VB.Net is proprietary to
>>> MS.
>>
>> Microsoft does own .Net and has the trademarks to the .Net name.
>>
>> Let's let Microsoft speak for itself, shall we? "Microsoft .NET is a
>> brand associated with Microsoft technology. .NET is not a platform, an
>> application, or a service. Rather, it is a set of capabilities in
>> products that enables people, information, systems, and devices to
>> connect and exchange information seamlessly through the use of Web
>> services.
>
> That's incorrect. XML allows this and not Web services, which can be used
> by any type of .Net solution or non .Net solution. There is also .NET Biz
> Talk server that allows .NET applications and applications running on
> mainframes to communicate with each other through the use of XML over TCP
> that have nothing to do with Web services, as an example. The key to cross
> platform communications is through the use of XML. And XML is a key
> component of .NET.

Since it came directly from Microsoft at
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx,
perhaps you should let them know that their info is incorrect.

>
>>
>> The Microsoft .NET Connected logo program was developed to highlight
>> specific products that exhibit Web service connectivity through the use
>> of the .NET Framework, an integral component of the Windows operating
>> system. Products or services that meet the criteria to use the logo but
>> have chosen not to license the logo should use the phrase "Microsoft
>> .NET-connected" (but not the Microsoft .NET or Microsoft .NET Connected
>> logos) according to the guidelines set forth on this Web page."
>
> .NET is not soley about Web solutions.

Again, this is entirely from the Microsoft website at
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx.

>>
>> This can be found at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx.
>> You should really read it. They are quite specific about who can use
>> ".Net" and how. Some of it may surprise you.
>>
>> What Microsoft actually submitted to the ECMA (along with help from
>> Borland, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, International
>> Business Machines, ISE, IT University Copenhagen, Microsoft Corporation,
>> Monash University, Netscape, Novell Corporation, OpenWave, Plum Hall, Sun
>> Microsystems, and the University of Canterbury New Zealand ) was actually
>> 2 items - the CLI specification
>> (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm)
>> and the C# specification
>> (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ec ma-335.htm).
>
> Thank you, but I have already read that months ago maybe a year and a half
> ago as to what was going to happen..
>
>>
>> This was a brilliant move on Microsoft's part. It gave the illusion of
>> participating in open standards while placing a 6-9 month (as Microsoft's
>> own pages state at ) wait for any adoption of standards even via the
>> ECMA's Fast Track process.
>>
>> This gives Microsoft a never-ending buffer of a minimum of 6-9 months
>> AFTER they propose changes to the standard (which they seem to do about
>> every 2 years).
>>
>> This 6-9 months is just for the ECMA to "Fast Track" the changes to
>> .Net. Then, competing languages and IDEs must incorporate those changes
>> (add another 6-12 months) and then the coders must learn and incorporate
>> the changes into their new code (another 6-12 months).
>>
>> That's a 18-36 month lead on the competition! What software company
>> wouldn't do that? And, it just so happens that .Net versions are coming
>> out in approx. 36 month intervals! Surprise, surprise, surprise! As
>> soon as the competition catches up - BAM! - Microsoft takes another step.
>
> Business is business and one tries to stay ahead of the competition. It's
> Java that needs to catch-up to .Net. But Sun Micro Systems is sitting on
> the ECMA .Net Standard committee dancing to MS's tune.
>>
>> This has long been a (largely successful) business practice of
>> Microsoft's - distract and destroy. By keeping others chasing the moving
>> dot, they can happily work on other concepts and markets with very little
>> fear of anyone actually opposing them.
>
> Again, business is business.
>>
>> For instance, the good (but simple minded) folks over at Novell just
>> can't seem to wrap their tiny skulls around the notion that Mono will
>> ALWAYS be playing catch-up to Microsoft. That places Microsoft just
>> where they want to be - in control of the future of desktop computing.
>
> Mono is solely for ASP.Net solutions the last time I looked. I don't think
> Mono has anything to do with desktop solutions.
>
>>
>> The thing that I find strange is how willingly supposedly intelligent
>> people simply follow along like crack addicted sheep.
>
> They are going to dance to the MS tune just like they did with IBM when
> IBM was the king. It's the nature of the beast. It's the old saying is
> that you dance to the leader's tune. When some other compnay becomes the
> leader, they will all dance to that compnay's tune.
>
>>
>> Linux distros had better wake up as well and start innovating instead of
>> following and trying to match Microsoft.
>
> There is no leader of Linux to push it with advertisement money. It's all
> a grassroots movement. But Open Source and Linux have forced something
> like .Net to be free for developers IMO, otherwise, developers will start
> jumping ship on MS. Some have already done just that.
>
>>
>> After all, who wants to match slow and clumsy feeling apps and OSs?
>
> If you think MS is going to fall or not dominate the market in your
> lifetime, you have got another thing coming. :)

Want to bet a pint on it?

>
> BTW, I sat in .Net training classes 8 hours a day for four weeks being
> hammered on .NET, when the company I worked for at the time flew in a .Net
> guru from India to train the client server developers.

Perhpas he should visit
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx,
before filling your head with ideas that are opposite those published by
Microsoft.

>
> MS is nothing compared to the mutil billons, billons, and billions more
> billions then it needs company I use to work for.
>
> I suggest you read the book *Rats in the Grain*, and the company is just
> as cut throat and more cut throat than MS will ever be.

Thanks, I will try and dig up a copy.

>
> And Win 2k3 server, IIS7 and .NET are walking Linux and Apache down.

This too shall end.

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" wrote in message
news:6CE867D8-8CC3-4536-817D-362021112FA9@microsoft.com...
> Jim,
>
> As it is as you write, why are you telling this, do it better, however
> keep your mouth until you have achieved that.
>
> Cor

My friend Cor! I was wondering when you'd chime in with utter nonsense.

Thank you for being you. It is a nice break from logical discourse.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

wrote in message
news:1191158315.717047.181590@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Jim,
>
>
> Here is my though:
>
> If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
> more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
> some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
> not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.
>
>
> Alberto

It certianly is much easier to write with the framework as much of the
coding has already been done for you. But, the UI still starts and runs
slower in the apps that I have written to mirror my C++ and VB6 apps on the
desktop.

..Net seems much more suited to web applications where desktop speed is not
required or expected.

jim

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:zsTLi.69006$Y7.46513@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mr. Arnold" wrote in message
> news:%23zOasPyAIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:2rFLi.83987$Lu.23727@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>> Mr. Arnold wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "jim" wrote in message
>>>> news:0VCLi.83917$Lu.23427@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/09/2007 in message
>>>>>> Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
>>>>>> than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
>>>>>> that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
>>>>>> version?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
>>>>> their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
>>>>> everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being
>>>>> to use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal
>>>>> tools and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool
>>>>> set that they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS
>>>>> and one for real-world developers designing for the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about
>>>>> the code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do know that MS doesn't own .Net? That's right MS gave it all
>>>> away. The reason .Net even exist is because of the fallout between Sun
>>>> Micro Systems and MS about the use of Java by MS. VB.Net is
>>>> proprietary to MS.
>>>
>>> Microsoft does own .Net and has the trademarks to the .Net name.
>>>
>>> Let's let Microsoft speak for itself, shall we? "Microsoft .NET is a
>>> brand associated with Microsoft technology. .NET is not a platform, an
>>> application, or a service. Rather, it is a set of capabilities in
>>> products that enables people, information, systems, and devices to
>>> connect and exchange information seamlessly through the use of Web
>>> services.
>>
>> That's incorrect. XML allows this and not Web services, which can be used
>> by any type of .Net solution or non .Net solution. There is also .NET
>> Biz Talk server that allows .NET applications and applications running on
>> mainframes to communicate with each other through the use of XML over TCP
>> that have nothing to do with Web services, as an example. The key to
>> cross platform communications is through the use of XML. And XML is a
>> key component of .NET.
>
> Since it came directly from Microsoft at
> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx,
> perhaps you should let them know that their info is incorrect.

I read the link. May I suggest that you sit in some .Net classes and learn
the facts. Or do you just go by what you read and cannot think or be shown
what's outside the box. You do know the Web Services are SOAP/XML services
don't you?

>
>>
>>>
>>> The Microsoft .NET Connected logo program was developed to highlight
>>> specific products that exhibit Web service connectivity through the use
>>> of the .NET Framework, an integral component of the Windows operating
>>> system. Products or services that meet the criteria to use the logo but
>>> have chosen not to license the logo should use the phrase "Microsoft
>>> .NET-connected" (but not the Microsoft .NET or Microsoft .NET Connected
>>> logos) according to the guidelines set forth on this Web page."
>>
>> .NET is not soley about Web solutions.
>
> Again, this is entirely from the Microsoft website at
> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx.

I don't care what the link is talking about. I am sitting in the fox hole
and on the front lines with this stuff. ;-) What the officers are talking
about and what the reality is for the Sgt. or Buck Private sitting in the
fox hole are two different things.

What's does a .Net Service/NT Service have to do with the Web? What does a
..Net Console or Command application have to do with the Web? What does a
..Net desktop application have to do with the Web. However, they all can be
developed to consume a Web service if need be? But in most cases, they are
in communations with things in an LAN envrionment over TCP with an
application server or other servers like SQL Server or a COM+ server on the
LAN that have nothing to do with HTTP.



>>>
>>> After all, who wants to match slow and clumsy feeling apps and OSs?
>>
>> If you think MS is going to fall or not dominate the market in your
>> lifetime, you have got another thing coming. :)
>
> Want to bet a pint on it?
>

Sure we can, but you nor I will be around to drink it. ;-)

And you can always dream about how you would like to see it. But a reality
check may be in order here.

>>
>> BTW, I sat in .Net training classes 8 hours a day for four weeks being
>> hammered on .NET, when the company I worked for at the time flew in a
>> .Net guru from India to train the client server developers.
>
> Perhpas he should visit
> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/tr ademarks/usage/net.mspx,
> before filling your head with ideas that are opposite those published by
> Microsoft

I suggest that you somehow find your way to a fox hole and get on the real
firing line, instead of you trying to be a make believe soldier, nothing
against you personally. But thats's what you now seem to be to me is a make
believe soldier, and you can't think out side the box.

But again, I have nothing against you personally. It's just observation
here. Man, I have been doing this since 1971 and started programming in
1980. Do you think I went by some advertisement that some vendor put out as
a selling point over the years, to be around doing this for this long? But I
want to make it clear that I have nothing against you.

>
>>
>> MS is nothing compared to the mutil billons, billons, and billions more
>> billions then it needs company I use to work for.
>>
>> I suggest you read the book *Rats in the Grain*, and the company is just
>> as cut throat and more cut throat than MS will ever be.
>
> Thanks, I will try and dig up a copy.
>
>>
>> And Win 2k3 server, IIS7 and .NET are walking Linux and Apache down.
>
> This too shall end.

Linux is not going dominate the Web Server market like they did in the past.
It's as simple as that.

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"jim" wrote in message
news:OvTLi.69009$Y7.8343@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> wrote in message
> news:1191158315.717047.181590@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>>
>> Here is my though:
>>
>> If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
>> more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
>> some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
>> not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.
>>
>>
>> Alberto
>
> It certianly is much easier to write with the framework as much of the
> coding has already been done for you. But, the UI still starts and runs
> slower in the apps that I have written to mirror my C++ and VB6 apps on
> the desktop.
>
> .Net seems much more suited to web applications where desktop speed is not
> required or expected.
>

Are you aware of any of the infoemtion in the links?

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998547.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/02/CLRInsideOut/ default.aspx

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

Wonderful articles Mr.Arnold, I will read them immediately. Thank you.

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

On 29 Set, 20:54, "jim" wrote:
> "Mr. Arnold" wrote in messagenews:u9VSqLsAIHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jim" wrote in message
> >news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
>
> > But other software vendors are devloping solutions in .Net for Vista.
>
> >http://www.bestvistadownloads.com/
>
> >> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
> >> applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
>
> > Why should MS develop existing applications it has in .NET? You know the
> > old saying, if its not broke, then you don't fix it. And anyone would be a
> > fool to be converting existing code, if it's not need and has no Return On
> > Investment or ROI.
>
> I agree. No need to rewrite apps just to rewrite them. But what about new
> desktop apps for Windows? Can you name *any* applictions that do
> significant work (i.e. that are data or process intensive) that use .Net -
> even better one that's written by Microsoft? Can you name any that perform
> as quickly or as stable as their C++\VB6 predecessors?

Yes, check this one and try to do it in VB6 ! :-)

http://www.datatime.eu/download.aspx
DataTime Reporting Solution

-P

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

wrote in message
news:1191227966.696987.96720@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Wonderful articles Mr.Arnold, I will read them immediately. Thank you.
>

Here is another link that you may find interesting.

MODEL-VIEW-PRESENTER
http://www.polymorphicpodcast.com/

click 'Shows'

click 'Design Patterns Bootcamp: Model View * Patterns'

view part 1-5

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

"pamela fluente" wrote in message
news:1191230804.861114.265920@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.. .
> On 29 Set, 20:54, "jim" wrote:
>> "Mr. Arnold" wrote in
>> messagenews:u9VSqLsAIHA.4656@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "jim" wrote in message
>> >news:SBvLi.60092$7e6.22167@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >> Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
>>
>> > But other software vendors are devloping solutions in .Net for Vista.
>>
>> >http://www.bestvistadownloads.com/
>>
>> >> If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what
>> >> desktop
>> >> applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
>>
>> > Why should MS develop existing applications it has in .NET? You know
>> > the
>> > old saying, if its not broke, then you don't fix it. And anyone would
>> > be a
>> > fool to be converting existing code, if it's not need and has no Return
>> > On
>> > Investment or ROI.
>>
>> I agree. No need to rewrite apps just to rewrite them. But what about
>> new
>> desktop apps for Windows? Can you name *any* applictions that do
>> significant work (i.e. that are data or process intensive) that use
>> .Net -
>> even better one that's written by Microsoft? Can you name any that
>> perform
>> as quickly or as stable as their C++\VB6 predecessors?
>

You do know that there is C++ in NET that can use the .Net Framework/Managed
code or not use the .NetFramewotk period/Unmanaged Code? If you want speed
for a process intensive application, one is going to use C++ .NET
Unmanaged. Life INSURANCE Actuary application written by an Actuary
application programmer is using C++ .Net Unmanaged I suspect to crunch the
numbers, if .NET is the directive in the company..

Do you honestly think that MS is the only one that's producing applications
that are process intensive that need speed that are using .Net?

And about VB6, which I have nothing against VB6 becase I used it for some
years professionally, VB6 is dead for new projects/applications in today's
environment. If there is any work out there for VB6, it's maintenance only
for existing legacy applications, and they are not paying well for old dead
technology experience.

You got to know when to hold the cards in the hand or fold the cards in the
hand you're playing. ;-)

Re: Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn"t write in .Net?

There are areas where .NET beats both, more so with VB6 than C++, but COM is
fairly well embedded into Windows and C++ allows you to write using a native
approach.

But, speed is not everything. There are certainly cases where perf is the
number one issue, but not always.

I have not spent a huge amount of time in Windows UIs, so .NET may very well
suck there. At a previous assignment, we wrote an ETL program that ripped
through GBs of data per day, which smoked the old Oracle stored procedure
method. I did not test against C or C++, however.

Part of getting perf out of .NET is learning to get a bit deeper into the
bowels of .NET. It can also help to stick in the binary world as much as
possible, rather than the Unicode string world, where so much of .NET
sticks. You also have to really watch how you are setting up strings, as
..NET is not very forgiving if you get into concatenation, even cases where
you are concatenating in the Append method of a StringBuilder.

None of what I am talking about is UI. Perhaps poking farther into GDI+ will
help in this respect.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************************************************
| Think outside the box!
|
*************************************************
"jim" wrote in message
news:OvTLi.69009$Y7.8343@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> wrote in message
> news:1191158315.717047.181590@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>>
>> Here is my though:
>>
>> If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
>> more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
>> some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
>> not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.
>>
>>
>> Alberto
>
> It certianly is much easier to write with the framework as much of the
> coding has already been done for you. But, the UI still starts and runs
> slower in the apps that I have written to mirror my C++ and VB6 apps on
> the desktop.
>
> .Net seems much more suited to web applications where desktop speed is not
> required or expected.
>
> jim
>