is win32 programming dead?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leibnizster
  • Start date Start date
| Don't forget WSUS. It's written in .NET 1.1.

:) Guess you could add Sparkle too.
 
William Stacey said:
| The UIs are a minor part of SQL and Exchange.

Minor?? ok.
Click to expand...

You think anyone would compare SQL Server against say Oracle and buy or not
based on the UI?
 
Nick Hounsome said:
You think anyone would compare SQL Server against say Oracle and buy or not
based on the UI?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, actually. The UI of Oracle makes it very, very hard to
use IMO. For a small company which could well be easily served by
either database, ease of maintenance (which certainly includes the UI
to my mind) could make a big difference. It could make the difference
between having to hire someone who knows Oracle already, and using
someone who can pick up SQL Server.
 
Well you can't say it minor however. If it sucked, no one would buy either
and go with something else. But the OT was MS apps that used .Net IIRC. I
think you have some examples.

--
William Stacey [MVP]

|
| | >| The UIs are a minor part of SQL and Exchange.
| >
| > Minor?? ok.
|
| You think anyone would compare SQL Server against say Oracle and buy or
not
| based on the UI?
|
|
 
See reply to Nicks post.
Click to expand...

I did, and it doesn't match what Microsoft's sites claim.

..net is not listed as a requirement for exchange 12, and is only listed
as a requirement for sqls report tool. If it was required for the
UI/management tools -- you'd think it would mention it. Not saying you
are wrong -- but there seems to be a disconnect there?

As for Visual Studio and Biztalk theydon't really count in my opinion as
their whole reason for existing is to manipulate -other- .net
applications.
 
| .net is not listed as a requirement for exchange 12, and is only listed
| as a requirement for sqls report tool. If it was required for the

It is (unless they changed it)

| UI/management tools -- you'd think it would mention it. Not saying you
| are wrong -- but there seems to be a disconnect there?

Exchange 12 UI will actually call MSH cmdlets which are .Net. That way
console apps, scripts, and UI can all call the same objects.

| As for Visual Studio and Biztalk theydon't really count in my opinion as
| their whole reason for existing is to manipulate -other- .net

I could agree with VS, not Biztalk. At over a million lines of c#, it
counts.
 
Doesn't Exchange 12 require Windows Server 2003 64-bit? If so, the .NET 2.0
framework will ship as part of the OS. In this case, you can't tell from
looking at the Exhange 12 system requirements if .NET is required as it's
part of the OS.

Mike Ober.
 
According to the Exchange 12 FAQ, MS will only be releasing Exchange 12 on
Window 2003 R2 x64 servers and later. These servers have .NET 2.0 built in.

Mike.
 
Pardon me. You are right. I was looking at the reqs for Exchange 2003,
Exchange "11", not Exchange 12.

-regards,
 
While I've never run any .NET v1.0 application(I started using from v1.1
only), I see a v1.0.3705 in my Microsoft.NET/Framework folder, so I persume
that it's been installed by default, unless there was an automatic update
installed it without my notice...
 
42 said:
From that you'd almost get the impression that .NET programming is
dead... or will be in the near future.

Are there counters or responses to his argument?

-regards,
dave
Click to expand...
Well, that would mean Java is also to become extinct from the same
reasons. And many other languages, too.
 
ET said:
Well, that would mean Java is also to become extinct from the same
reasons. And many other languages, too.
Click to expand...

1. java is not tied to Sun anway near as strongly as .NET to MS
2. Nobody ever claimed that they were going to rewrite all their core apps
and OS in java.
3. Sun has Star Office and everyone else has Open Office - all java. This
has gone way further than anyone originally expected and is very good. MS is
apparently NOT writing MS Office in .NET
 
Nick Hounsome said:
3. Sun has Star Office and everyone else has Open Office - all java. This
has gone way further than anyone originally expected and is very good. MS is
apparently NOT writing MS Office in .NET
Click to expand...

OpenOffice isn't written in Java - at least most of it isn't. There's
Java *integration* in OpenOffice, but it's optional. See
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/instructions.html

Not sure about StarOffice, but I think the same is true for that too.
 
| 2. Nobody ever claimed that they were going to rewrite all their core apps
| and OS in java.

MS never claimed that either. Its a development framework - pure and
simple. And a good one too. Don't read too much into it.

| 3. Sun has Star Office and everyone else has Open Office - all java. This
| has gone way further than anyone originally expected and is very good. MS
is
| apparently NOT writing MS Office in .NET.

Why would they? People seem to bring this up as if it somehow slams .Net.
You don't take millions of lines of tested code and throw it out - well
normally you don't want to (they about did just that with Vista, but that is
another story). They use plenty of .Net for new stuff. I would have to
guess MS now puts out more managed code then not. It would be an
interesting "ticker" item to put on their web site splunked from daily
builds or something.
 
I understand that there was a demo given where they took the C++ code for
PowerPoint and configured it and compiled using managed C++. Apparently
while it's not completely managed, many existing apps could be migrated to
..NET over time.
 
Did you hear anything about the relative speed while using the managed
version?

--
William Stacey [MVP]

|I understand that there was a demo given where they took the C++ code for
| PowerPoint and configured it and compiled using managed C++. Apparently
| while it's not completely managed, many existing apps could be migrated to
 
Back
Top