Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Microsoft didn't bet the company on .Net after all

After reading much of the commotion on Joel's article (which for me was great, because even though I knew that .Net meant Asp.Net, I didn't have any confirmation,)  I came to the conclusion that they've bet it on Longhorn, because only LH will give meaning to all the promises that we have heard all along since they began announcing .Net.

Java is still doing pretty well, for example, and I expect it to continue doing fine. Maybe even finer, as the competition of .Net might be pushing them.

As for IE not being updated for a long time, I think it helped the web "standard", even if now they don't want this "standard" anymore.

Mono can help those that are "stuck" with other OSs, and at the same time, help the "standard" to continue for as long as possible.

PS: The new blog-style of information dissemination is much better. We can have soap opera written for us in real time. :-)
(I don't miss Ask Joel one bit.)

Dewd
Saturday, June 26, 2004

"I came to the conclusion that they've bet it on Longhorn,"

I think you are correct.  Why would they bet the company on a java knock off considering their cash cows are Office and Windows?

As400
Sunday, June 27, 2004

Sorry, I also meant to add that is .net was so all fired important you couldn't find a service pack without it.  Or they would make media player or something that everyone gets "require" it.

As400
Sunday, June 27, 2004

With $52 billion in the bank, is there really any risk to Microsoft in "betting the company" on anything?

Kyralessa
Sunday, June 27, 2004

"Sorry, I also meant to add that is .net was so all fired important you couldn't find a service pack without it.  Or they would make media player or something that everyone gets "require" it. "


YES! YES !! YES !!!!
I've been saying this for nearly two years now.

Since M$ isn't requiring a .net upgrade it's because:
a. It's a burden on the user (it is)
b. .net isn't stable yet, they want to wait till it's stable. (I think this is true too).
c. They have NO interest in supporting .net for shrinkwrap software. I.e., if they made it a required upgrade, then it would be MUCH easier to use for shrinkwrap.

Mr. Analogy
Sunday, June 27, 2004

I assume when you say shrinkwrap, you really mean downloadable, since 20MB is nothing on a CD-ROM.

Kyralessa
Sunday, June 27, 2004

Yup if they be the company.  The .net runtime would rival aol cd's in number.

HP
Sunday, June 27, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home