Upgrade to XP or die!

[Shane R. Monroe]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1617450,00.asp

So ... IE's security holes are a vehicle to force people to upgrade to Windows XP.

BRILLIANT! I may call MS a**holes, but I can't call them dumb. It wouldn't surprise me for ONE SINGLE MINUTE if this whole thing was planned.

"Hey Bill .. here is what we're gonna do ... We've been releasing OSes left and right - eventually, we're going to have to release one that doesn't suck ... but there is the problem .. when we do that, we're finished making new OSes .. so we HAVE to get these old Windows people to upgrade ..."

"Steve, how do we do this? You can't hold a gun to their heads and MAKE them upgrade ... (or can we?)"

"Sure we can, Bill ... Here is what we'll do. We'll take a program that everyone needs, product dump it into our OS so that we gain total marketshare (we'll piss on anyone that tries to get in our way - don't worry - we have $80B in cash laying around - we can afford to product dump). Once we get it in there, we'll lace it full of exploits and vulerabilities ..."

"I'm afraid you lost me there, Steve ... how can making crappy software work to our advantage?"

"I'm getting there, Bill. First off, we've been shoveling crap for so long, no one is going to bat an eye. Plus, we'll close the holes with updates, making us look like good guys ..."

"Hey now ... I like where this is going ..."

"Oh, Bill wait .. it gets better ... Once we release the flagship OS that is rock solid, doesn't crash, has excellent memory management - we'll open even more holes in the program. This will undermine the product beyond words ... people will ACTUALLY consider LEAVING our product to go to another product!"

"Alright, you lost me again, Steve"

"Bear with me here. Now, this program will run on ALL versions of Windows, right? And everyone will be using it right? Once we open the security holes like a giant block of swiss cheese, everyone will be bitching and complaining about it. It will be chaos on earth."

"Mmmm... I like chaos ..."

"I know you do Bill ... now .. here is how we get these ants to drop the Windows they know and love, and move to our rock solid version of Windows... We ONLY update the product's security holes in THAT operating system! So if they are running Windows 98 or 2000, they HAVE to upgrade OS to get the security! These bastards will be SO DEPENDANT on our product, they HAVE to upgrade!"

"But, what about all the people that will move to another product instead of ours that is filled with holes?"

'That's the best part, Bill. We put SPECIAL, CLOSED architecture technology in it that no one can duplicate - we make developers LOVE it so much, that they can't get rid of it - and if they did, it would break all their enterprise apps! Isn't that brilliant???!!"

"So let me get this straight ... Upgrade to Windows XP or die?"

"THAT'S THE MONEY BABY!"

"Sweet Jesus, Steve .. get on this right away. I can't think of a better program to use than IE. Its old, antiquated, and we haven't updated it in like 10 years ... its a PERFECT 'sneak in under the radar' vehicle for this type of devious, underhanded, morally wrong plot ... Take the IE team out of their carbonite blocks and get them to work...."

What do you think?

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

I think they had a similar debate when they decided to turn Visual Basic into C a couple of years prior.

I want to know how they keep suckering people into upgrading their office package every year. To me, Office 97 and 2000 where the peak of rock solid Office packages and VB 5 and 6 where the best Visual Basic packages. I guess we could all run wizards, i mean .NET and be l33t coders just people who use frontpage are l33t web developers.

[Jay Snellen]

As others have said here, I think a lot of it has to do with software as a status symbol: using Office 95 or just about any version of Works is seen as unfashionable, even though they might do the job just fine, simply because they're perceived as "old" or "crippled" programs. As far as I'm concerned, there's little or no reason to upgrade from Windows 2000 Professional and Office 2000; I can't see any significant advantage to upgrading to newer versions.

As far as IE goes, it's unfortunate that it has such a huge segment of the marketplace because it will be a target no matter what Microsoft does. But they're almost making it too easy: why should a web browser be able to install any kind of software at all? Why have they let IE go stale for so long? I keep my users on Mozilla and they have yet to be hit with spyware or viruses, so what's Microsoft's excuse?

[Shane R. Monroe]

Yeah, I don't need speech modules in my Office program.

I used to feel the same about Windows 2000 - now that I use XP at home and 2000 at work, I'm a HUGE cheerleader for XP. The memory management is superior and with a couple of tweaks, it REALLY outperforms 2000 in terms of speed. I can't go back.

IE is a mystery to me. Its antiquainted, featureless, and full of holes. Once people start making agnostic websites, IE is in serious trouble.

[WorknMan]

I want to know how they keep suckering people into upgrading their office package every year. To me, Office 97 and 2000 where the peak of rock solid Office packages and VB 5 and 6 where the best Visual Basic packages. I guess we could all run wizards, i mean .NET and be l33t coders just people who use frontpage are l33t web developers.

From what I have observed, even hardcore anti-MS zealots agree that .NET is the best thing MS has ever come up with. Being an ex-VB developer and now coding in .NET, I say good riddens to VB6 ... don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Personally, I am going to enjoy having to never hack the Win32 API with VB6 again, and now VB programmers are on the same level playing field as everyone else, because MS had the foresight to throw out the toy language and build a real one. If you still want to code apps with VB6, I'm pretty sure it's still going to work for years to come. So good luck with that

[Shane R. Monroe]

It isn't VB anymore ... its basically C LIGHT .. so you might as well code in C.

BTW, there are PLENTY of jobs for non-.NET people. My shop is hiring THREE more developers .. no .NET required.

I still enjoy coding things that don't require 80MB runtimes. Kthx.

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

lol..toy language..here we go again.

So if it isn't hard as hell to use, takes 30 years to just come out with a alpha, its a toy?

VB before .NET was the pinnacle for Rapid Application Development. If making a program that usually takes a month in every other language only take a weekend makes that language a toy then, I am a Toy's R Us kid

BTW-The only time i had to make API calls in VB is when i was writing games in it (on my slow ass 486 in VB3). Most everything has a OCX equivalent for it nowadays.

[WorknMan]

It isn't VB anymore ... its basically C LIGHT

It's more like VB on steroids I think the goal that MS had was to make it so all the languages they supported could tap into all of the features of .NET. In order for them to do that, they knew that some things in the VB language would have to be drastically changed. So what they decided to do was just to start from scratch and fix everything that was broken to begin with. Sure, it's harder to learn, but come on ... VB programmers finally have a real OOP language for God's sake.

so you might as well code in C.

In terms of .NET, you're right - it doesn't really matter what you code with. That's the beauty of it.

BTW, there are PLENTY of jobs for non-.NET people.

Of course, you're right. But for better or worse, the future of Windows is going to be .NET. So if you plan to develop Windows apps, you might as well get on board, unless you want to code unmanaged apps in C++.

I still enjoy coding things that don't require 80MB runtimes. Kthx.

Not really an issue with Longhorn - the 80MB runtime (or however big it is) will be the underlying API.

VB before .NET was the pinnacle for Rapid Application Development.

I think it still is. It just has a steeper learning curve than did VB, and runs a lot slower However, when Longhorn comes out, pretty much the whole system will be .NET so your app(s) will run as slow or as fast as everything else.

BTW-The only time i had to make API calls in VB is when i was writing games in it (on my slow ass 486 in VB3). Most everything has a OCX equivalent for it nowadays.

Yeah, but most of those OCX controls ain't free either. So for me, doing the Win32 thing was kinda necessary

[Shane R. Monroe]

<I>It isn't VB anymore ... its basically C LIGHT</I>

It's more like VB on steroids I think the goal that MS had was to make it so all the languages they supported could tap into <i>all</i> of the features of .NET. In order for them to do that, they knew that some things in the VB language would have to be drastically changed. So what they decided to do was just to start from scratch and fix everything that was broken to begin with. Sure, it's harder to learn, but come on ... VB programmers finally have a real OOP language for God's sake.

You're TOTALLY missing my point. People write in NON C languages because they don't WANT or CARE to write in OOP or C style languages. That's the WHOLE POINT of the diversity of language types. Almost all the advantages of OOP I can get from using types in Blitz. And I can do it in half the codebase. I'm not into ease - I'm into tight, small code. .NET is neither.

In terms of .NET, you're right - it doesn't really matter what you code with. That's the beauty of it.

No, that's the standard Microsoft way of denying you choices. Now, if I want to be part of "Team Microsoft", I have no choice but to code in a C like OOP language. Screw that ...

Of course, you're right. But for better or worse, the future of Windows is going to be .NET. So if you plan to develop Windows apps, you might as well get on board, unless you want to code unmanaged apps in C++.

Hey, non .NET apps run on ALL flavors of Windows. There will ALWAYS be a market for them. People won't download a couple meg update to protect themselves. They are damn resistant to downloading 80MB of filler - I know, I've watched shareware programmers FIGHT tooth and NAIL to try to make people download and install .NET and the fact is - most people are resistant. Remember, you're in the customer service business writing software. You tell them ".NET is good! I can write programs 10x faster for you" they are going to say "That's nice, but I am not going to download 80MB just to make YOUR life easier". They will hit BACK, return to google, and find a 2MB alternative. I've seen it happen a millions times. Sh*t, I've done it myself!

Not really an issue with Longhorn - the 80MB runtime (or however big it is) will be the underlying API.

I see you have been smoking WEED.NET along with all the other .NET programmers that think Longhorn will solve all your distribution and .NETHATE problems.

Do you have ANY idea how many people out there STILL don't run Windows XP? Its been FOUR YEARS now, and they STILL don't have significant market penetration. Ask Bryan - like 90% of his clientele are Win9x. Intel, my government office - ALL still on 2k and they have NO SOLID PLANS to move forward. You HONESTLY think Longhorn is going to be embraced? Hell no. The MASSIVE leap in hardware requirements, the cost of upgrade - bah, corps will stay on Windows 2000 until their son's take over the company. And guess what .... its a proven fact that people run at HOME what they run at WORK.

No, Longhorn is going to be even LESS adopted than XP was (even Microsoft knows that) which means .NET problems are here to stay.

I know developers think that customers care about them - but customers care about themselves - its that simply. 1MB program + 80MB of runtimes or 3MB program runs when they download. Sorry bro, customers are like water .. they follow the path of least resistance. The only reason I've found that someone already has .NET installed if their one CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT app is .NET and they kicked and screamed the whole way in.

I think it still is. It just has a steeper learning curve than did VB, and runs a lot slower However, when Longhorn comes out, pretty much the whole system will be .NET so your app(s) will run as slow or as fast as everything else.

Again, puff puff pass .. Longhorn will be a dud. Your ONLY vindication is OEM heavy handedness, but that isn't making XP the overwhelming success.

[WorknMan]

People write in NON C languages because they don't WANT or CARE to write in OOP or C style languages.

If you're going to sit here and tell us that VB.NET is a C-like language, you've obviously never coded in VB.NET or C. C isn't even object-oriented. As far as OOP goes, .NET itself is object-based, so it doesn't make much sense to try and code an object-based API with a non OOP language, does it?

Almost all the advantages of OOP I can get from using types in Blitz. And I can do it in half the codebase.

Oh please - even by your own admission, you can't even get apps in Blitz to minimize to the system tray without pulling teeth.

I'm not into ease - I'm into tight, small code. .NET is neither.

Ya know, I remember we used to have discussions like this on the old Dave's Classics message board - people were argueing whether an emulator should be written so that it runs games fast enough on a 486. I know people are still bitching about not having apps written in assembly anymore, but we all have to move on.

No, that's the standard Microsoft way of denying you choices.

Why do you say that? .NET itself was written specifically to be language-neutral. Of course, it ain't like you have to code in .NET. If you want to remain in the stone age, you can still code with Blitz and VB6 and even those should work great in Longhorn

I can write programs 10x faster for you" they are going to say "That's nice, but I am not going to download 80MB just to make YOUR life easier". They will hit BACK, return to google, and find a 2MB alternative. I've seen it happen a millions times. Sh*t, I've done it myself!
....
The only reason I've found that someone already has .NET installed if their one CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT app is .NET and they kicked and screamed the whole way in.

I think you just answered your own question. If you're writing an app for which a 2MB equivalent is available on Google, why the hell are you bothering?[/quote]

Hey, non .NET apps run on ALL flavors of Windows ... Do you have ANY idea how many people out there STILL don't run Windows XP? Its been FOUR YEARS now, and they STILL don't have significant market penetration. Ask Bryan - like 90% of his clientele are Win9x. Intel, my government office - ALL still on 2k and they have NO SOLID PLANS to move forward.

I think even you would agree that the lifespan for Win9x is severely limited. Sure, you're going to have some people running it for the next 10 years, just as you have people still running Windows 3.x, but they are on their last limb. Win2k? No problem. I have the .NET framework installed at work on Win2k.

No, Longhorn is going to be even LESS adopted than XP was (even Microsoft knows that) which means .NET problems are here to stay.

XP is little more than 2k with eye candy. You may not agree with me, but that is the public perception. What I think about Longhorn is that it's going to be the biggest jump we've seen since Windows 95. And if you will recall when Windows 95 came out, people stood in line for hours overnight to be the first to pick up their copy. I ain't saying that's going to happen this time, but I don't think Longhorn is going to be the dud that XP was.