Board index » delphi » Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

David Farrell-Garcia

Delphi Developer
 

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn


2005-06-02 04:21:11 AM
delphi11
Abdullah Kauchali writes:
Quote
Again ... resorting to insult when you don't need to.
Not at all. I'd think that it was more polite to say that "they
were confused" rather then to say they were just making it up. No
insult intended.
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.4.1
 
 
David Farrell-Garcia

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 04:32:04 AM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Abdullah Kauchali writes:
Quote
David, can you confirm that the article lets one believe that the only
realistic way to do any development on Longhorn is via .NET?
no, not really. I do think that the intention of MS is still to limit
access to the API except via .Net classes but I have never seen it said
officially "when" that would happen.
Quote

(BTW, you must really be such an intelligent bloke that you knew from
the beginning that native API's will still be supported in Longhorn
even though Longhorn was claimed to be ".NET from the ground up"!)
We don't use the term bloke here in the USA so I don't know if I am one
or not. As far as the "inteligent" modifier goes, I don't really think
that I am particularly intelligent. I often struggle, however even at
my low level of brain power I am still able to comprehend that I have
read nothing official that states, one way or the other, that the
native API's will be supported or not. I have always just assumed that
they would unless we are told differently via some offical statement
from MIcrosoft. Nor have I ever heard it said that "Longhorn was
claimed to be .NET from the ground up", as you state. Who "claimed" it
and when?
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.4.1
 
David Farrell-Garcia

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 09:10:56 AM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Abdullah Kauchali writes:
Quote
So now you are claiming ignorance on the issue? David, we are
talking about Longhorn here, aren't we?
That is not what I said. I said simply that I have never heard anything
official from Microsoft claiming that Longhorn was going to be written
in .Net. Why is it so hard for you to get that. Instead of arguring
the point provide references where it was said and I don't mean
he-said-she-said references but the real thing.
Quote

This whole thread has debated the issue of what constitutes "being
based on .NET". While some have gone to great lengths to distill the
debate into whether the operating system itself will be built with
.NET, it must be borne in mind that any conclusion there is hardly
germane to the fundamental issue at hand viz. the concern that
developing with .NET on Longhorn would be inescapable and
unavoidable.*
Well, since we are conversing in English, then "based on .Net" and
"built with .Net , On Top of .Net" all imply that the operating system
cannot exist without .Net. Fact is, I have only heard this from you
few and you have provided zero references to date to indicate that
either one of those assumptions was ever said officially, or otherwise,
by Microsoft.
Quote

So why would people think like this?
Actually, not many do think that from what I see.
Quote
Simple: because of the
existence of a litany of literature claiming that .NET libraries
would be the core
Oh good then. Surely,with such a "litany of literature" in existence
you can provide a valid reference? At least one?
Quote
and primary API on Longhorn supplanting the
analogous construct that is currently Win32.
How could the .Net libraries be the core and the API of Windows? .Net
is wraps the core Windows .dll's today. I am not sure what the
advantage of changing that would be. A RAD to the core operating
system, I suppose. Sounds illogical to me.
Quote
After all the fuss, you've heard nothing! Before you judge people as
confused and having problems with comprehension, don't you think it
may be worthwhile to find out why a good number of developers think in
this "apparently absurd" manner?
no, not really.
Quote

You can start by reading many of the links provided in this very
thread that demonstrates my point - and, once again, my point is
about the *concern* among developers that .NET on Longhorn is the
primary development platform - developing in anything else will be a
glorious hack at best. So, start learning/using/succumbing to it!

I did that already, and my conclusion is that nothing in there
indicates any position change by Microsoft concerning the Windows core
or API.
Quote
--
* Let me clarify before you come up with "of course Win32 will always
be supported" - I mean support as "first class citizen" applications.
No go-betweens, interops or emulations etc.
I have NEVER said that Win32 would always be the available API. NEVER.
In fact I have stated numerous times that I remember MS saying that at
some point the API would be via .Net.
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.4.1
 

Abdullah Kauchali

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 02:24:58 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

"David Farrell-Garcia" writes:
Quote
That is not what I said. I said simply that I have never heard anything
official from Microsoft claiming that Longhorn was going to be written
in .Net. Why is it so hard for you to get that.
LOL. And it seems you have a hard time understanding that saying Longhorn
was going to be written in .NET is relevant /only/ in as much as it impacts
the development paradigm of Joe Sixpack Windows developer: ie. developers
will be forced to learn .NET if they have any hope of writing first class
citizen applications on Longhorn.
Quote
Instead of arguring
the point provide references where it was said and I don't mean
he-said-she-said references but the real thing.
References have been provided in this very thread. A certain Michael
Anonymous has been doing a tireless job of posting one such reference. I
myself posted a couple of references, not to mention the direct references
that resulted you in picking up the matter further.
Quote
Well, since we are conversing in English, then "based on .Net" and
"built with .Net , On Top of .Net" all imply that the operating system
cannot exist without .Net.
Aha, we are getting there ...
Quote
Fact is, I have only heard this from you
few and you have provided zero references to date to indicate that
either one of those assumptions was ever said officially, or otherwise,
by Microsoft.
Please search for references in this thread that indicate that a .NET based
API will be the core and primary API for Longhorn.
Quote
Actually, not many do think that from what I see.
I think you are wrong on that one, with due respect.
Quote
Oh good then. Surely,with such a "litany of literature" in existence
you can provide a valid reference? At least one?
Already done. But you choose not to read them perhaps?
Quote
How could the .Net libraries be the core and the API of Windows? .Net
is wraps the core Windows .dll's today. I am not sure what the
advantage of changing that would be. A RAD to the core operating
system, I suppose. Sounds illogical to me.
I'm beginning to sense that you've in fact heard very little about Longhorn
or that you haven't been keeping up to date with the Longhorn roadmap.
Do yourself a favour and read up on WinFx and its relationship with
Longhorn.
Quote
I did that already, and my conclusion is that nothing in there
indicates any position change by Microsoft concerning the Windows core
or API.
I've posted this before, but please read it:
www.windowsdevcenter.com/lpt/a/5000
Quote
I have NEVER said that Win32 would always be the available API. NEVER.
In fact I have stated numerous times that I remember MS saying that at
some point the API would be via .Net.
Oh my goodness, are we completely running in circles here? LOL.
 
Wayne Davis

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 09:57:50 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

In article <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>,
XXXX@XXXXX.COM says...
Quote
LOL. And it seems you have a hard time understanding that saying Longhorn
was going to be written in .NET is relevant /only/ in as much as it impacts
the development paradigm of Joe Sixpack Windows developer: ie. developers
will be forced to learn .NET if they have any hope of writing first class
citizen applications on Longhorn.

I guess Microsoft will finally have to accept the fact that Office is
not a first class citizen application and probably never will be.
 
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 10:17:11 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Wayne Davis writes:
Quote
I guess Microsoft will finally have to accept the fact that Office is
not a first class citizen application and probably never will be.
Your comment may (or may not -- I can not tell) be intended as
sarcastic, but here are some interesting thoughts on this:
wesnerm.blogs.com/net_undocumented/2005/05/sudoku_strategi.html
<quote>
I sometimes wonder if new applications can one-up Microsoft Office by
building on top of Avalon. Microsoft Word, for example, probably won't
have access to the Avalon's advanced typography, animations,
transforms, 3D effects, or hardware acceleration in its document
rendering. Office, which has, for years, pioneered user interface
advances in Windows, could quickly become stale-looking.
</quote>
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] ?Vertex Systems Corp. ?Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
How to ask questions the smart way:
www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 
Wayne Davis

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 10:24:43 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

In article <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
says...
Quote
I sometimes wonder if new applications can one-up Microsoft Office by
building on top of Avalon. Microsoft Word, for example, probably won't
have access to the Avalon's advanced typography, animations,
transforms, 3D effects, or hardware acceleration in its document
rendering. Office, which has, for years, pioneered user interface
advances in Windows, could quickly become stale-looking.


I have not seem anything Avalon has to offer which hasn't already been
done in various existing applications such as some of the Adobe, Corel
and Autodesk apps. The only difference is the existing native apps are
faster.
 
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 10:49:21 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Wayne Davis writes:
Quote
The only difference is the existing native apps are faster.
Than what? "Avalon" isn't an application, so what are you looking at?
Generalizations regarding .NET performance are disingenuous. It is true
that Avalon's graphics rendering is very fast due to the fact that it's
based on Direct3D, but I wouldn't generalize about Avalon-based
*applications*, which may or may not have optimization issues.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] ?Vertex Systems Corp. ?Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Useful articles about InterBase development:
blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/category/21.aspx
 
Lurkio

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 11:29:50 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Wayne Davis writes:

>I guess Microsoft will finally have to accept the fact that Office is
 >not a first class citizen application and probably never will be.
Your comment may (or may not -- I can not tell) be intended as
sarcastic, but here are some interesting thoughts on this:

wesnerm.blogs.com/net_undocumented/2005/05/sudoku_strategi.html

<quote>
I sometimes wonder if new applications can one-up Microsoft Office by
building on top of Avalon. Microsoft Word, for example, probably won't
have access to the Avalon's advanced typography, animations,
transforms, 3D effects, or hardware acceleration in its document
rendering. Office, which has, for years, pioneered user interface
advances in Windows, could quickly become stale-looking.
</quote>
Do you guys think that later versions of Office /won't/ take advantage
of Avalon UI functionality? IMO, that has to have been one of the main
internal drivers at Redmond for the creation of the greater level of
native/.Net integration offered by C++/CLI...
Still a heck lot of work to do for them, mind - that is one of the perils
of letting your marketing team plan your OS strategy :-P )
 
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 11:36:25 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Lurkio writes:
Quote
Do you guys think that later versions of Office won't take advantage
of Avalon UI functionality?
No, I don't think this. My wild speculation is that it is more a
question of when.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] ?Vertex Systems Corp. ?Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Everything You Need to Know About InterBase Character Sets:
blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/articles/403.aspx
 
Lurkio

Delphi Developer

2005-06-02 11:58:27 PM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Lurkio writes:

>Do you guys think that later versions of Office won't take advantage
 >of Avalon UI functionality?
No, I don't think this. My wild speculation is that it is more a
question of when.
I remember reading ages ago that the /next/ version of Office was due to be
shipping with Longhorn, its UI being based on Avalon as one of the selling
points. Now that Office 12 is shipping /before/ Longhorn, maybe this is part
of their thinking in decoupling Avalon from the OS - to allow the new Office
to (at least partly) support it. Still a way to go before we see it, tho'...
BTW, to dispel the notion that all I do in here is spread anti-M$ FUD
I must admit that I do like the following news :
www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73437/microsoft-annoints-xml-as-office-12-format.html
 
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]

Delphi Developer

2005-06-03 12:16:18 AM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Lurkio writes:
Quote
BTW, to dispel the notion that all I do in here is spread anti-M$ FUD
I must admit that I do like the following news :

www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73437/microsoft-annoints-xml-as-office-12-
format.html
See also:
wesnerm.blogs.com/net_undocumented/2005/06/office_xml_ii.html
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] ?Vertex Systems Corp. ?Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
IB 6 versions prior to 6.0.1.6 are pre-release and may corrupt
your DBs! Open Edition users, get 6.0.1.6 from mers.com
 
David Farrell-Garcia

Delphi Developer

2005-06-03 12:28:30 AM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Abdullah Kauchali writes:
Quote
I'm beginning to sense that you've in fact heard very little about
Longhorn or that you haven't been keeping up to date with the
Longhorn roadmap.
I have been keeping up with it a bit via my MSDN Universal
Subscription.
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.4.1
 
Billb

Delphi Developer

2005-06-03 02:10:13 AM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Quote
Lurkio in <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:

Do you guys think that later versions of Office /won't/ take advantage
of Avalon UI functionality? IMO, that has to have been one of the main
internal drivers at Redmond for the creation of the greater level of
native/.Net integration offered by C++/CLI...

Can they do that and still share a code base with Mac office?
 
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]

Delphi Developer

2005-06-03 02:43:49 AM

Re: The 'Dirty Little Secret' about Longhorn

Billb writes:
Quote
Can they do that and still share a code base with Mac office?
They could if they had a BSD implementation of .NET. Oh, wait, they
do....
(Yeah, yeah, I know -- Rotor isn't ready/intended for production use.
But neither is a .NET version of Office at this point.)
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
How to ask questions the smart way:
www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html