Why no serious MS Application in .NET yet ??

[Among Thieves]

As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is
2005, .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some
help of his mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET" in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?

Like most primitives, you think an application is a desktop application.

That is too far from the truth.

You know what the most used application today is?

Yahoo!

Yes, Yahoo!

It's the most used, most useful and most loved /application/ on earth.

It just happens to run on a server, with lightweight client called a
browser.

That is what .Net is used for...building web apps...and there are millions
of them.

Also. .Net and J2EE are used for SOA -- service oriented architecture. The
application is the totality of the useful services, applets, web services
and web applications build with these tools.

That is what an /application/ is in 2005.

So if you're looking for a spreadsheet -- get a time machine and head on
back to 1985.

 

[DHOLLINGSWORTH2]

Applications apart from Content Management Server and most of BizTalk
2004?

Where is the business case for completely destabilizing the Office
codebase with a total rewrite?

And as others have stated - .NET's been released for 3 years not 5.

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk/weblog
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk

As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?

Would you know if the app your running is a dotnet app?

What do you consider "Serious"?

 

[Herr Lucifer]

Yes. I might be primitive, because I don't and might never get into web
application development. I have concerns over my own field of "desktop
developments". Well, if .NET is built only for the "net", then there should
be no window app support in it. I appreciate their web support, but for
desktop I believe they have a lot to do.

 

[Herr Lucifer]

Well, If it takes ages to load, then it is one!(kidding)
Ok: simply Use "Dependency Walker" which comes with VS 6 and VS 2003.

By Serious I mean sth like office. Sth that would be sold to customers.

 

[Herr Lucifer]

I also think that all those web applications are hosted by desktop
application and services ( including YAHOO!!)

 

[Guest]

So far, Bob's response sounds like the most correct response. Cost is also
the reason whey we have only just now begun to migrate our commercial apps to
..NET. We have a huge investment in COM and replacing that overnight is not
feasible, or warranted.

Markus

 

[Scott M.]

Like most primitives, you think an application is a desktop application.

And up until this point, we actually had a thread that contained good
information and was an honest debate over an issue.

That is too far from the truth.

You know what the most used application today is?

Yahoo!

Yes, Yahoo!

It's the most used, most useful and most loved /application/ on earth.

We also had a thread going up 'till now that was not erroneous and/or
non-factual.

So if you're looking for a spreadsheet -- get a time machine and head on
back to 1985.

And we....well, if you can't say something nice...

 

[User]

You can't blame him too much.
Some leftover air from the internet bubble has lodged in the blood vessels
of his brain.

I'm still waiting to find out how an internet connection will magically
solve all problems of hunger, disease, and poverty in the third world.

 

[Guest]

Hello together,

alls what I say to this topic is: look at Windows SharePoint Services and
SharePoint Portal Server. These products are full ASP.NET (based on .NetFX
1.1) applications. Look at the Reporting Services for SQL Server 2000 and
last but not least at BizTalk Server 2004! Look the up coming SQL Server
2005, the new Windows Longhorn Shell (Codename MSH) and the Avalon CTP 2004
(for free download from the MS Public Server) based on .NetFX 2.0.

I think, this are a good starting point for .NetFX enabled applications!

 

[Guest]

One great .Net Windows-based application ist the MS Terrarium 1.2 (ok it's a
example game but an Desktop Application)! And you can extend it with your own
creatures. Of cource, the up coming Windows Longhoen Shell (MSH) is a fully
desktop application. BizTalk Server 2004 is a full windows application. There
are so many examples for MS windows-based applications...

 

[Guest]

Microsoft have already started 'shipping' .net application - Windows Media
Connect - which requires the .NET framework 1.1

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/devices/wmconnect/default.aspx

The readme states the .NET framework 1.1 is required

 

[Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]]

http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2004/11/02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Junfeng,

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

You are a real optimist, you believe it stays so long.

Or should we say pessimist because that you think progress will stop.



Cor

 

[Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]]

phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.

now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at all.
even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in .NET". Well
wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
visibility/marketability/consensus on .net? hmmm, strange. real strange.

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc

 

[Guest]

Based on experience -- it takes time to do migrations. We have a fairly
simple web-based app and it has been 2+ years and we're still in progress of
migrating it into .NET. Why, because of scope and resource availability.

Now, granted that MS is has a lot of resource/money but also consider the
exponential complexity as compared of doing a straightforward conversion for
a simple app. Lastly, with such a big company -- what would make sense to
migrate first into a new platform?

Finally, not in defense of MS but the argument above are purely realities in
every business and it takes more than technical know-how to complete such
endeavor.

 

[William Stacey [MVP]]

not sure. Take Word for example. It is not just port-ship-done. You have
a year or two of testing after the year or so of porting (or what every it
takes). Probably well over 50 million to port it. So then the question is
why? Not just the cost, but the opportunity cost of *not using those same
developers for three years on some new managed product. If you just port
one-for-one, then no reason I can see. It may make sense if you plan a
great deal of change to the product that would require a new code base
anyway (i.e. ASP.NET in IIS7). I think we are now seeing the start of the
flood of managed apps.

--
William Stacey, MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.

now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at all.
even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in .NET". Well
wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
visibility/marketability/consensus on .net? hmmm, strange. real strange.

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2004/11/02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

--
Junfeng Zhang
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

 

[Sean Hederman]

phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.

Poison? Bitter? Are you talking about
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2004/11/02/251254.aspx? Cause I
didn't see any nastiness there. Merely a point by point refutation of the
assertion that Microsoft isn't writing stuff in .NET.

now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at
all. even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in
.NET".
Well wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
visibility/marketability/consensus on .net?

60% of MS revenue comes from Office, which at a total revenue of $38bn,
comes to $22.8bn. Have you ever heard the term "If it ain't broke don't fix
it". Especially when you're gambling with 22 billion dollars a year.

How much do you think just rewriting the Office Suite would cost? I figure
at an absolute minimum you're looking at about a thousand man years per
product in the suite, so around a half billion dollars.

hmmm, strange. real strange.

Not really. I don't think any company on earth would take such a massive
gamble. I personally think it's strange to expect MS to throw away billions
of dollars of existing investment and revenue, and spend billions more in
order to arrive where they already are. And if you think the Office division
should take orders from the .NET area, think again. Not going to happen.

Office will gradually migrate pieces of itself to .NET (as is already
happenning). To expect it to happen in some huge gigantic billion dollar
extravaganze is unrealistic however.

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2004/11/02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

--
Junfeng Zhang
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

 

[Guest]

Um, besides arguing semantics (badly), you have a basic misunderstanding.
Sure, from the user's point-of-view Yahoo may be an application... but to the
computer the Browser itself is the application. And, that's what the poster
was talking about.

Also, just to add my 2c to your irrelevant post (by adding my own irrelevant
to the original poster post)... the web used as a platform for "applications"
has proven itself many times to be ill-equipped... as has Java... even in the
SOA context which you describe. For instance, this is why people are
scrambling to re-represent XML as binary (gasp!) all over the place.

Apparently, after following around the Java and markup language and script
kiddies dolts for years (as you seem to be), everyone has realized that it's
sheer idiocy to represent a 2 byte number as a 8+ bytes ascii character.

"application is the totality of the useful services, applets.....bla bla"
sounds a lot like the OLE, then COM and CORBA jive from 10 years ago which
never really panned out the way everyone pontificated. The web, SOA, and all
that jive will have its place but it will never (it seems) be able to replace
the true desktop solutions.

 

[Guest]

I think that was the poster's point.

Back in 1996 MS was toying around with the idea of completely rewriting the
Win32 API and create a true object oriented OS (remember Cairo?). The .NET
Framework IS what Cairo was suppossed to be... minus the Win32 underlying
layer doing all the work though.

I strongly believe that for MS to remain competive in the long run they have
to strip out Win32 (and make it run as an on-the-side virtual machine for
compatibility) exactly the same way Apple did with MacOS. MS can keep the
Kernel (removing deprecated API's from it) but completely ditch Shell32 and
many of the other adjunct components completely. Unfortunately, MS has always
been hellbent on 110% backwards compatibility... which is why Windows suffers
from so many problems today. I mean, DDE is still there!!! (and some apps
including Windows Explorer still use it!!!!!).

 

[Guest]

? > Where is the business case for completely destabilizing the Office
codebase with a total rewrite?

To remain competetive and shed the reputation that their software is
insecure because of its extra long teeth. Also to put to rest COM and its
super-slow (even on today's computers!) marshaling, instantiation, and memory
leaks.

Lotus asked the same question about rewriting their apps for Win16 and then
again for Win32 and where are they now?