Microsoft not content with "dissing" just the Classic VB Developer Army....

[Jim Hubbard]

On 6 Apr 2005 15:21:07 -0700, (e-mail address removed) wrote:


¤ I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
¤ alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
¤ be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
¤ applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
¤ what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
¤ Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.
¤
¤ Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
¤ good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
¤ while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
¤ programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?

It's all about choice. While we may not use more than one language we do
have a choice. We also have
a choice with respect to other features, such as the development of
components for distributed
applications and shared code libraries, the development of web
applications and services - choices
notably absent from REALBasic.

You're right. Those things are absent right now. But, it is something the
REALbasic team is working on.

While touting the advantage of a multi-platform development tool I think
it's also important to note
that this feature is not particularly significant with respect to demand.

While still far behind Windows, the demand for Linux is growing by leaps and
bounds....if I may....

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5145332.html

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1004138,00.html

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45850.htm

http://www.cioupdate.com/trends/article.php/2237451

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-821073.html

http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;952191873;fp;4;fpid;21

http://www.itweb.co.za/office/FirstTechnology/0405120751.htm

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4570

http://www.tolkienonline.com/docs/6678.html

http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004111201626NWBZDP

http://itpapers.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?dtid=3&scid=264&docid=88285

http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200310/ij_10_03_03a.html

http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/why_novell.html

These links were chosen to show that the adoption of Linus is not new and is
not slowing. If you'd like more let me know.

It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making great
strides in the browser market, with no signs of stalling. People will adopt
the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC, Windows or
Linux.

The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places than
you think. There are things in the works right now that will make Linux the
premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide. Add them to
the governments making the switch, and you have yourself a little
revolution.

Don't worry....it'll be fun. I promise.

The cost to support
multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.

Again, you are right.

In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly. This, for
the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or MAC
operating systems.

But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just click
and run on a different OS. There is no additional development required.
Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app
on and click "Build".

REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected.
Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than
that.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Jim Hubbard]

These links were chosen to show that the
adoption of Linus is not new and is




Jim, you do know that several of those links you posted are the same
article don't you?

I grabbed the links quickly, so I did not read them all as thoroughly as I
would have liked to. Arguing against points that have already been proven
to be false is a pet peeve of mine and one thing that I loathe to waste time
doing.

And some are almost 2 years >old. And if you read those articles, it
clearly states that Linux is not any cheaper than Windows from a support
standpoint.

The support costs are about the same for both platforms, but the original
cost of hardware and software is MUCH less on Linux.

As for RealBasic and cross-platform support, have you tested it?

Only for XP Pro and SUSE 9.2 Professional. I don't have a MAC handy....but
I will have one by this weekend for testing.

Having downloaded the Free standard version, I can say that in the case of
a simple app, that RB will compile to Linux (haven't tested on Mac).
But, not being able to build a complicated app and fully test it in Linux
(due to the 5 minute time limit in the Standard edition) I cannot say for
sure how well Linux or Mac OS is supported.

I talked to Geoff about this today. I told him that 5 minutes was way too
short a demo time for complicated applications, and he has an idea of how to
lengthen that time for more complicated applications. I hope he can get it
in for the version 6 release in the next 60 days.

So, if you are like me and have not used the PRO version of RB, I would
think it would not be a good idea to make a broad statement on how easy to
develop a cross-platform >application

Actually, I have been accepted into the beta program and am currently using
the latest beta to test the app out. So far, I love the look. (Geoff really
needs to show more of the interface on the website - it puts version 5.5 to
shame.)

using RB is. You cannot (or should I say , I cannot) fully stress test
an application in 5 minutes in a different OS than >it was developed in
and be certain that you/I will not have problems.

I agree, and so does Geoff. He's working on changing that.

My final questions to you is why are you spending so much time on bashing
Microsoft over all this? If you have >decided to migrate to Linux and
leave Microsoft products behind, why are you still posting on all these
different newsgroups?

I am in the process of deciding. Who knows? Microsoft could make a
decision tomorrow to actually support VB6 or even offer a valid upgrade
tool....or (GASP!) not charge $10,000 per developer for the top MSDN
subscription. If any of those things happened it would have a definite
impact on my final decision.

Hopefully these posts will help others to decide whether REALbasic is an
alternative for them. It's not for everyone. It's more for the "task
oriented" developer than the professional C++ or C# developer. At any rate,
it's certainly worth checking out.

Wouldn't it be better to get up to speed on RealBasic and Linux?

I'm working on that. Playing with the beta......and trying a simple app or
2. If those go well, I will try and port a 95,000 line application from
Visual Basic to REALbasic to really test out the limits of the conversion
process.

One step at a time.

Just a few thoughts and my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for
them...........
james

I always appreciate any honest questions or even criticisms. It's the
flaming I can do without....

Jim Hubbard

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Never going to happen. I personally don't want it to happen. If the apps
run for the next 5 years, that will be long enough for me to convert my
customers over to .Net.

But, what happens when a .Net patch breaks your code? Not many people have
caught onto the fact that Microsoft issues patches for .Net (although you
have to call them to get one).

If you find an error (or just some weird behavior) in the .Net framework,
Microsft may have a patch for it that you can get and apply to your systems.
You can even have it installed with your application (which would be
neccessary if you used it - as others most certainly won't have it
installed).

Problem is, if another application is already installed (or gets installed
later) that writes around the error in .Net, your patch will cause that
author's app to malfunction.

It works the other way too. If you code around all of the bugs found in
..Net (yes, I know....every program has bugs - I'm not digging at Microsoft
for not having perfect code - remeber, I liked VB6) but, another author
patches the framework, (BAM!) your code malfunctions.

It looks like trading DLL Hell for Patch Hell. What's the difference?

Most of my customer's are just now upgrading to XP, so I really won't have
to worry about it for a long time, if at all. By the time they start to
migrate to Longhorn, they will need to upgrade our software too.. Selling
upgrades and new features in software is what makes us money. If a customer
buys it and wants to use it for 15 years, that's fine, but we only make
money on that initial sale and then support contracts. I'd rather sell them
better software with more features every few years plus the support
contracts.

All valid points. But, usually business changes dictate that software be
updated and enhanced regardless of the OS or programming language status.
That's where we make most of our money. We service clients with volatile
business climates. They always need a change for something.

Don't compare C++ to Visual Basic.

(awww crap! One of *those*.....)

So, let me get this straight... You would rather spend your time and your
customer's money by downgrading them to real basic, than upgrading them to
a .Net language?

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I consider creating applications
that link everything into a single executable (as opposed to a framework
that may or may not be "patched") a more stable solution - therefore an
UPgrade. I consider being able to service my clients needs on Windows, MAC
or Linux another advantage. I consider the added ability to write code for
any Windows, MAC or Linux customer good for my company - as it expands our
potential client base to those desktops and increasingly includes more
goverments and school systems around the globe.

In all, I'd say that I consider true safety from DLL Hell (or Patch Hell),
an increased customer base, the ability to adjust to a changing desktop
market and the ability to assist our customers in choosing the best
desktop/server environments for them an UPgrade.

Especially when that company is really small in comparison to Microsoft?

Microsoft's size is one of the disadvantages of doing business with them.
No longer do Microsoft customers call the shots. Microsoft is doing
anything it damn well pleases....just because it can.

Real Software has to listen to it's customers. And, (as a potential
customer) I like that.

I don't know of any customers that like being told what to do by the company
they are doing business with. What would happen if you told one of your
customers that you were going to change their technologies even though they
didn't want you to? You could even assure them that it's in their best
interest. But, I doubt you'd be around much longer.

However, Microsoft pulls this off. How?

It's two-fold. Microsoft doesn;t have to convince business. They convince
programmers that they have a new and improved thingy that is "the new big
thing" in programming. Developers make their living developing. So, in
attempt to keep stay on top (thus keeping an income stream going) they rush
to adopt the latest from Microsoft. Then, the devlopers try and convince
their bosses and clients that they jsut have to get "the new big thing" or
they will be left in the dust.

Microsoft uses fear to sell their products.

Does a business really need the very latest from Microsoft to compete?
Rarely.

Hmm... If I were your customer, I'd be pissed and running from you.

You'd never be my customer. We screen better than that. We only take
clients that we know we can make happy. Fortunately, in the last 2.5 years
we've only had to turn away 3 clients.

You get what you pay for.

You sure do. Viruses, unstable IDEs, intentinal breakig of backwards
compatability and a forced march to deposit more money into Microsoft;s
$50,000,000,000 cash pile.

I think the cost is too high.

Really? What market are you in? In ours, it matters. In fact, some IT
departments kicked us out before we switched to VB because they didn't
want non-Microsoft products in house.

If we adopt REALbasic as our core tool. we wouldn;t be a good fit for those
companies. I can live with that.

Increasingly, governments, large companies and school systems are moving to
Linux. Maybe we're just a little ahead of the curve.

The same went for MySQL. Open source? No way.. They were having none of
that....

And, that's fine. We are not a one-size-fits-all software shop.

And the workers want to get their job done. If they can't, they get fired.

Right. It's your job to make sure they can get that job done. Usually,
though, if they can't get their job done because of the software, ot would
be you gettig fired......wouldn't it?

It should be. It's your job to get your customers the best solution for
them. IT may be Windows. It may be Mac, It may be Linux. They look to us
to know and guide them in this decision. That's what we get paid for.

I would never suggest an operating system that would slow production or harm
productivity. That would hurt them and our reputation. I'd rather not have
the job at all, and recommend them to another shop that can help them.

Try putting a linux desktop in an manufacturing environment. It won't
last. I've seen it happen.

Every business and situation is different.

I personally don't really care what happens to VB6 at this point. I've
started to upgrade my skills from it to VB.Net, because I saw the need.

Good. You should do what makes you happy.

My customers need more advanced features and better support for newer
technologies.

Interesting. I have yet to get the customer that cares what technology I
use to write their applications. They just want to be able to compete and
share info with other businesses as inexpensively as possible.

I can do that and stay with Microsoft by moving everything to VB.Net, or
even C# if I wanted to.

REALbasic is not for everybody. I wish you well with Microsoft
technologies. I am just looking at this from my point of view and what is
needed to satisfy the real estate companies, home builders and attorney's
offices that I support.

I look at this as an opportunity, not a hinderance.

IMHO, it is simply an opportunity for Microsoft to pad their pockets. I was
doing fine before .Net, and I'll do fine after it. But,I have to make the
best call that I can for the future.

That doesn't include willful breaking of backwards comparability.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Jim Hubbard]

It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen), but
now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized business.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...subscription+changes"&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328

Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Jim Hubbard]

It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen),
but now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized
business.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...subscription+changes"&rnum=1#459ca99eb0e7c328

Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.

Jim Hubbard

I have made no attempts to hide my displeasure at the way Microsoft has
treated the VB6 developers - as you will notice in the Microsoft.public.vb
newsgroup postings.

And, with the current pricing structure of MSDN and rising costs of
Microsoft's desktop software, I truly believe we need a valid alternative to
Microsoft developer tools. Currently, I am looking into REALbasic
(www.REALbasic.com) as just such an alternative.

Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be anything
except REALbasic.

If you are a classic Visual Basic developer (pre-VB.Net), you will find the
interface and syntax very familiar. You will be able to upgrade your VB6
apps better than Microsoft's transition tool to VB.Net. And, the coming
2005 interface (60 days until release) has a much enhanced UI (screenshots
at http://www.realsoftware.com/demo15/).

REALbasic 5.5 is even FREE to former Visual Basic developers and they will
receive a discount on REALbasic 2005 when it gets released in 60 days (or
less). Just sign up here -
http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/vb6/index.php - BEFORE APRIL 15, 2005.

Although those reasons are all good enough to at least take a look at
REALbasic, the true value of REALbasic, for developers AND end users, is
freedom of choice with the OS. REALbasic applications are truly
cross-platform and will run on MAC, Linux or Windows machines. This means
that, as prices continue to climb for Microsoft MSDN subscriptions (almost
$10,000 for the top MSDN subscription) Microsoft OSs and Microsoft software
(like $499 for Office 2003 Pro) you and your customers have the option of
choosing a less expensive OS like MAC, a supported (but way less expensive
than XP) Linux OS like Novell's Linux desktop, Red Hat Workstation or even a
FREE OS like one of the hundreds of free Linux distros.

Microsoft has shown that they no longer value (or even listen to) their
customers. They will be the next IBM.....decimating the empire that they
have built by ignoring customer needs and pricing themselves out of Windows
development.

Make no mistake about it, Microsoft IS pricing themselves out of the
software market by pricing the small and mid-sized business out of Windows
development.

Microsoft seems to be forgetting that the ability for small and mid-sized
shops to do their own development is a large part of what has made Microsoft
the largest software company in the world. Its what drew small companies to
Windows - the ability to develop their own relatively inexpensive software
solutions in-house. Not to mention the millions of developers that used
Windows tools to develop and sell their own software.

And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono +
Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.

I humbly suggest you take a look at REALbasic. Even if you don't choose it
as your development platform, at least you know what's out there and the
possibilities for true cross-platform development.

Whatever development platform you choose, may I suggest that it be
cross-platform. Not because Microsoft is big and should be crushed. I'm
not now (nor have ever been) anti-Microsoft. But, I am pro-me and pro-my
customers.

Being pro-me and pro-my customers, I have to make hard decisions to protect
them and me from future harm. One of those decisions is the decision to
begin developing cross-platform solutions for my customer base, so that they
have the freedom to move to a more-affordable OS and more affordable
development platform for their company's specific needs.

For most small businesses, not being on a Microsoft OS is not a problem.
Most, if not all of the software they write is for internal use. So, their
OS and desktop software decisions can be more financially driven. This
means that using Linux (even the MAC OS is cheaper than XP) for a desktop
solution in many small and mid-sized businesses is an easy call.

Their daily task is not to use Microsoft products.....it's to get business
done in a manner that saves time and money while not sacrificing quality.
Microsoft would do well to understand that.

I believe that responsible developers and ISVs owe it to their customers to
give themselves and their customers the option of OS independence. Giving
REALbasic a look might help you towards that goal.

Jim Hubbard

(I will not respond to flames.....although serious questions or debate is
welcomed.)

 

[Evan Mathias]

Curious, I wonder where MS main customer base resides, the US or Offshore?
MS is fully aware that Windows became a hit on the PC's because the
Developers supported it. Can there really be that much money in the selling
of Development software that it can risk upsetting its OS Developers. I
think MS and us all are facing a changing world.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Jim,

You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could
use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with that?

Cor

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Jim,

You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could
use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with that?

Cor

I have been playing with VB.Net 2005 Beta. It looked much better than the
2003 version and even got it's groove back a little with the simplified
interface.

But, faced with the outrageous pricing of the MSDN subscriptions, I am
forced to look at alternatives in making my decisions.

I also have to have my customers' best interest at heart, as well as my own.
I cannot, at this time, justify the continuation of the purchase and use of
the Microsoft OS, software and development tools when taking their pricing
into consideration VS the alternatives available to myself and my customers.

A company that makes Widgets can make and sell Widgets on Linux or MAC just
as easily as on Windows if they choose their development tools and desktop
software wisely.

So, why continue to pay the high "tea taxes" of Microsoft?

Although I have not made my final decision, I am leaning towards throwing
the Microsoft desktop into the harbor.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Brian Henry]

why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do it
all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont want
to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't mean you
need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET framework
SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you need a
graphical experience also.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do
it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont
want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't
mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET
framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you
need a graphical experience also.

Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.

The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. That
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.

Like the Mono project. It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB
version of the Mono project is even worse.

You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in.
That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions.
Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small
businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible with
..Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says
to make your do it too) . With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply
isn't possible.

The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg. Breaking backwards compatibility
and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office
2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that needs
to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to
Longhorn.

If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the
financially responsible thing to do.

Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Otis Mukinfus]

I don't know anything about you, Jim, but Brian was right about doing it for
free, and if you've had an MSDN subscription in the past, then you already have
a license to use the tools that came with it forever. So why don't you continue
to use the tools you have (the MSDN subscription has included VB6 since it's
release, so you have a copy of it) and get on with making money instead of
whining. I suspect you spend more time writing crap like that below than
working anyway...

just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.

The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. That
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.

Like the Mono project. It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB
version of the Mono project is even worse.

You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in.
That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions.
Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small
businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible with
.Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says
to make your do it too) . With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply
isn't possible.

The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg. Breaking backwards compatibility
and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office
2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that needs
to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to
Longhorn.

If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the
financially responsible thing to do.

Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.

Jim Hubbard

Otis Mukinfus
http://www.otismukinfus.com

 

[Ron Ruble]

Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.

The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. That
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.

That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
of third parties who offer superior features that use
a different idea of how to do things.

Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.

Which a lot of people may decide to do.

 

[Guest]

Otis,

Hubbard's opinion is shared by a lot of companies. For instance, the
previous company I worked for (small company) decided to switch to Java just
because MS development environment became too costly compared to the benefits.

I can imagine that other small companies will drop MS development
environment for cheaper environments. I'm neither for nor against this
strategy; it all depends on how much money you can make with a certain
project. If MS env. is too costly people/companies will change environment.
That's pure economy.

Another sad thing perhaps, is that prices of other software products will
increase because of this.

I'm very curious where this will lead...

TT

 

[Jim Hubbard]

I don't know anything about you, Jim, but Brian was right about doing it
for
free, and if you've had an MSDN subscription in the past, then you already
have
a license to use the tools that came with it forever. So why don't you
continue
to use the tools you have (the MSDN subscription has included VB6 since
it's
release, so you have a copy of it) and get on with making money instead of
whining. I suspect you spend more time writing crap like that below than
working anyway...

You are right. You can use the tools forever. But, Microsoft is actively
breaking backwards compatability with the old tools. Case in
point....Outlook 2003.

Now, you'd think that Outlook 2003 would be backwards compatible with Office
2002. I mean, most professional companies provide backwards compatability
for 2 major versions. Microsoft used to.....but now they've chosen a path
of abandonment and intentionally breaking backwards compatibility. Why?

Nevermind the why......that's another thread.....

VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn. So, if you keep using the
VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing. Can't do that.

 

[Aaron Smith]

VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn. So, if you keep using the
VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing. Can't do that.

So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in
Longhorn and supported? I think not..

 

[Jim Hubbard]

So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in
Longhorn and supported? I think not..

I hadn't seen anything from Microsoft indicating support of the VB6 runtime
in Longhorn. And, since you did not feel the need to back up your statement
with a link - I went on a fact-finding mission to see if Microsoft said
anything like this on their website.

After searching for over an hour, I finally found somebody at Microsoft that
says (via his blog - not on an official Visual Basic page on the Microsoft
website) that the VB6 runtime will be shipped with Longhorn and supported
for the lifecycle of Longhorn. Read it here - http://blogs.msdn.com/JRoxe/.

I doubt this is the reference that you had in mind as it was just posted
yesterday. Could you please post your Microsoft references? I am curious as
to when this was first stated openly by Microsoft. Was it yesterday, or did
I miss something earlier (which could also be the case).

In fact, the blog directly speaks to the millions of concerned VB6
programmers and directly addresses the petition at
http://classicvb.org/petition. It seems Microsoft is trying to make the
petition go away without actually DOING anything to make up for tossing out
a language that so many are so dependent on.

In part, Jay's blog states "There are strong feelings on all sides of the
issue that sparked this petition and I know that this note is not going to
address all of these concerns. However, I hope that we can continue to have
an open dialog around this issue. Some of these discussions will continue
in the public forum, but please also feel free to contact me directly."

That's just great. Whenever a company doesn't want to do anything about a
problem, but they want the bad press and problem to go away, they send out
the talkers. I'm tired of talking. FIX THE DAMNED ISSUE BY PUTTING
UNMANAGED VB6 SUPPORT INTO THE VISUAL STUDIO IDE! Nothing else is going to
make this go away.

You did it for C++, and you can do it for classic Visual Basic......the
question is will you? Or, will you continue to walk away from the largest
army of programmers the world has ever seen......the people that made you
great?

Speaking of going away, I am setting up my Novell Linux box and MAC today to
do more thorough testing of REALbasic. Looks like fun. At least I won't
have to worry about Microsoft abandoning me if I finally choose the
MAC/Linux/REALbasic route. (Go to www.realbasic.com for your FREE copy of
REALbasic 5.5 standard until April 15, 2005.)

There is one thing, and only one thing, that will get Microsoft's attention.
Mass defection to Linux/MAC and a different programming language. They have
forgotten that the customer is always right. And, only something big will
drive that point home for them.

Although that sounds quite radical, it is no more radical than the change
that classic Visual Basic developers already have to go through with
Microsoft. And, you will at least be the partial master of your own destiny
then.....not a gnat to be swatted by the monopolistic hand of Microsoft.

And, it's much cheaper than the Microsoft solutions. Only $89.95 for a
COMPLETE desktop in Novell Linux (SUSE) 9.2 Professional. That includes
Open Office, free email clients, free IM clients, free photo editing
clients......really everything you need for day-to-day operations in most
businesses. Contrast that to XP Professional at $279.99 (for a new install)
and Office Professional 2003 at $499.99 and the $89.95 option is at least
worth a test drive.

The $780 for basic daily activities with a Microsoft desktop is more than
the hardware needed to run it......twice as much as the hardware for a
simple business workstation. And, for what? So we can say we work on a
Windows desktop? Who gives a rat's ass what desktop is in place as long as
I can accomplish my daily job of making more, cheaper and better widgets to
sell.

Most company's don't get paid because they are using Microsoft
products.....they get paid to deliver goods and services, and their clients
really don't care what OS or desktop the company uses internally. Come to
think of it.....neither do the workers.

So, who does care (besides Microsoft, of course)?

Jim Hubbard

 

[Jim Hubbard]

That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
of third parties who offer superior features that use
a different idea of how to do things.

I wish this were the case. But, it seems that no other company has put 2
and 2 together yet.....

Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.

You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake,
even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and
say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The thing
they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual Basic
was for Microsoft).

You see, the combination of affordable desktop, plus and affordable,
easy-to-use development platform is the key to winning the war with
Microsoft. You win the war in the trenches.....by defection - like
introducing democracy into a totalitarian society.

When you have an affordable desktop, people WILL buy it. People will try
it. And, if there is an easy development platform for it
(say.....REALbasic), millions of disatisfied classic Visual Basic
programmers (and many non-programmers) will write applications for the
cheaper OS, because (A) they can afford to and (B) they like to write
applications for fun and to sell.

Once this starts, more and more applications become available for your
affordable OS. Then, more and more poeple will buy the OS because of the
vast number of applications available for it.

This model has been proven (and evidentally forgotten) by none other than
Microsoft itself. I told my sister, just the other night, that had I a
compnay that produced an OS like Apple's MAC, Linspire or Novell Linux and
if I could acquire a product like REALbasic to bundle with my OS.....that I
would change the world.

And, I would.

Jim Hubbard

 

[james]

Inline:

Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a
run for their money and the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and applications.

You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake, even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and
you don't have to lie and say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The thing they are missing is an easy
way to develop applications (like Visual Basic was for Microsoft).

Windows XP Home Edition can be had for less than $100.00 (USD) almost anywhere. And extra licenses are not that expensive.

You see, the combination of affordable desktop, plus and affordable, easy-to-use development platform is the key to winning
the war with Microsoft. You win the war in the trenches.....by defection - like introducing democracy into a totalitarian
society.

I think the affordable desktop Windows XP & development platform , Visual Basic Express (announced to be $49) will be a good,
cheap, combination for the non- programmers you mention in the paragraph below.

When you have an affordable desktop, people WILL buy it. People will try it. And, if there is an easy development platform
for it (say.....REALbasic), millions of disatisfied classic Visual Basic programmers (and many non-programmers) will write
applications for the cheaper OS, because (A) they can afford to and (B) they like to write applications for fun and to sell.

RealBasic, is not a cheap alternative to VB. Especially comparing their cheapest version , Standard, which sells for $99. ( I
know it's free for now, they are moving to a new version and it might pay them to give the Standard(current version) version
away to VB developers for free)
Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And
having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great product for the price.
To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO version which sells for almost $500.00.
That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for. And you get access to more than one programming language. Pretty
good deal if you need it.

Once this starts, more and more applications become available for your affordable OS. Then, more and more poeple will buy the
OS because of the vast number of applications available for it.

This model has been proven (and evidentally forgotten) by none other than Microsoft itself. I told my sister, just the other
night, that had I a compnay that produced an OS like Apple's MAC, Linspire or Novell Linux and if I could acquire a product
like REALbasic to bundle with my OS.....that I would change the world.

And, I would.

Jim Hubbard

In fact, Linux can be had for free. Along with all kinds of development tools. They are available for download everywhere.
Where the free part ends, is in the support department. Although there is plenty of online support for Linux from users and
developers, the real costs appear when a business decides to use Linux and has to retrain people to use it and support it
in-house. And for home users that are not
real computer knowledgeable, Linux is a real problem. In this case, Windows XP (to me) is a clear winner. If a home user
manages to get a Linux destro installed, (which has improved a lot) they had better be satisfied with the installed apps.
Because, if there is a special application they need or want, it may not be so easy to install (or available). And a messed up
install in Linux CAN kill the entire OS. Something, that I have not seen in a while in XP (except for Norton products.....).
I don't think the "Classic VB Developers" will be dumping Microsoft Products in favor of Linux solutions. Better to do what
they are doing and pressuring Microsoft for more support. And at least
a better migration path to newer tools. ( I tried moving a couple of my apps. to VB.NET 2003 and had so many ToDo's that it
turned out to be easier to just do a rewrite)
Anyway, I just wanted to jump in here and add my .02 to all this. I have tried RB Standard. And it is no replacement for VB6.
The only thing that RB has going for it in my opinion is being able to compile
executables for more than one OS. But, the Standard edition only does that in a very limited way. And is not good enough for
complete testing. As you probably did, I received an email from RS offering a FREE(one of my favorite words) copy of RB PRO ,
if I managed to be one of the top 100 people to get others to download and try RB Standard, thru a specialized link. Well, I
tried that and promptly got flamed for it. (in the "classic" VB newsgroups & one Linux newsgroup) So, I won't be doing that
again!!
Good luck on your quest (whatever it is)........ ( I don't think you are going to convience people to drop MS products)
james

Help me get free software at: http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
Good till April 15, 2005

 

[geoff]

Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be

bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And

having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great product for the price.
To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO

version which sells for almost $500.00.

That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for. And

you get access to more than one programming language. Pretty

good deal if you need it.>

Help me get free software at: http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
Good till April 15, 2005

James,

I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.

Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?

Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Jim,

Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.

I agree.

Not only that, but I've always hated dealing with all the big
non-Microsoft vendors. Up until 2001, Microsoft were a dream company to
deal with. It was XP, and now Longhorn that put me off.

However, regarding desktops and servers; the route I'm looking into now,
is very powerful servers (e.g. Quad 64bit Sun SPARC with a big-iron
fibre SAN) This could run Solaris, or if no using Sun hardware, maybe
something like OpenBSD? There's plenty options for all the web stuff,
databases, full-text indexing and XML, and it will run a lot faster and
more stable than Windows 2003, and it would also be easier to migrate to
other servers and platforms at a later date.

This would cover all the mission critical stuff I need to do and all
apps would be available world-wide and would run x-platform and x-browser.

The desktop could be something completely unrelated, e.g. one of the
free Linux builds, but all our apps are web-enabled anyway so I'm not
sure it would matter much. The problem would arise for when we need to
use graphics - e.g. a flowchart, but I'm sure we'll find something.

The big piece of the jigsaw that's missing for our corporates internally
is how to replace Active Directory, all the user accounts and NTFS ACLs
and also an "Exchange" style mail server. These are areas I have no
solution for as yet.