Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft? - Linux

This is a discussion on Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft? - Linux ; The thing is that more and more Microsoft applications are being written in .NET and I am of the opinion that this may well be responsible for the failure of Vista and, ultimately, the downfall of Microsoft. I mean, .NET ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

  1. Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    The thing is that more and more Microsoft applications are being written in .NET and I am of the opinion that this may well be responsible for the failure of Vista and, ultimately, the downfall of Microsoft. I mean, .NET applications are extremely slow and take forever to start up and shut down. They consume HUGE amounts of memory and require vast processor resources to run with any usable speed. C++ was never really used at Microsoft, it was mostly plain C and Win32 C API calls or .NET, but never C++. The C stuff was fast but extremely challenging to get right whilst C# is relatively easy but a resource hog. Why they never opted for C++ still amazes me. Sure, some Microsoft programs use some C++ but most do not, or only half-heartedly.


  2. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    There's this thing. It's called a line-length setting. You should look
    into it.

    On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:08:01 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous wrote:

    > The thing is that more and more Microsoft applications are being written in
    > .NET and I am of the opinion that this may well be responsible for the
    > failure of Vista and, ultimately, the downfall of Microsoft.


    Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't written in
    ..NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.

    > I mean, .NET applications are extremely slow and take forever to start up
    > and shut down. They consume HUGE amounts of memory and require vast
    > processor resources to run with any usable speed.


    This is completely untrue. While small .NET applications may have a
    significantly higher footprint, due to the necessity of loading the .NET
    class framework into the process space, this is all but unnoticable in
    larger .net apps. They are not significantly slower than native apps,
    because the code is compiled natively prior to it executing. It's not a
    'virtual machine' like Java (though even java doesn't even execute in vm
    anymore)

    > C++ was never really used
    > at Microsoft, it was mostly plain C and Win32 C API calls or .NET, but
    > never C++.


    This is complete bull**** as well. Nearly every major MS app was written
    in C++. Office, for instance, is written entirely in C++. Many parts of
    the OS are written in C++. Anything that's OLE/COM is, by definition,
    written in C++.

    You don't have a clue about this, do you?

    > The C stuff was fast but extremely challenging to get right
    > whilst C# is relatively easy but a resource hog. Why they never opted for
    > C++ still amazes me. Sure, some Microsoft programs use some C++ but most do
    > not, or only half-heartedly.


    Grow a clue.

  3. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't written in .NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.


    I thought that Vista cam with 'managed code', which bits in Vista handle
    the managed code bits?

  4. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    On Oct 2, 6:08 am, Anonymous wrote:
    > The thing is that more and more Microsoft applications are being written in .NET and I am of the opinion that this may well be responsible for the failure of Vista and, ultimately, the downfall of Microsoft. I mean, .NET applications are extremely slow and take forever to start up and shut down. They consume HUGE amounts of memory and require vast processor resources to run with any usable speed. C++ was never really used at Microsoft, it was mostly plain C and Win32 C API calls or .NET, but never C++. The C stuff was fast but extremely challenging to get right whilst C# is relatively easy but a resource hog. Why they never opted for C++ still amazes me. Sure, some Microsoft programs use some C++ but most do not, or only half-heartedly.


    What you're really saying is that java is responsible for the
    downfall, because Microsoft would certainly not have released .NET if
    it weren't for java's virtual machine finally making it easy to write
    windows applications (I mean, ones that actually work, not VB6 stuff).


  5. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Doug Mentohl spake thusly:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


    >> Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't
    >> written in .NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.


    If that's the case, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it is, then
    the question is /why/? I thought C# was supposed to be the best thing
    since sliced doughnuts. MS /did/ have 6 years and 10 billion dollars to
    rewrite Windows from scratch, (that /was/ the plan, right?), so why on
    earth wouldn't they use their own beloved .NET framework for the job?

    Or does MS know something about .NET that we don't?

    And yes, .NET was not released until /after/ work on Vista began ... the
    /first/ time around, but then the whole project (Longhorn #1) /was/
    scrapped half way through, and they basically started over from scratch,
    but apparently /still/ decided to not touch C#.

    Interesting.

    > I thought that Vista cam with 'managed code', which bits in Vista
    > handle the managed code bits?


    The .NET framework has been available since February 13, 2002. Whether
    or not it is shipped directly with any version of Windows, I don't know,
    but I'd be surprised if it isn't included by default in Vista.

    That is /not/ the same thing as Vista being /written/ in C# though.

    As to whether or not .NET is somehow contributing to the downfall of
    Microsoft, I doubt it, since it is predatory reinventions like .NET that
    are designed to strengthen their monopoly, and by all accounts there is
    nothing /technically/ wrong with .NET (unless, as I said, Microsoft know
    something about it that we don't).

    If there is indeed a "downfall" in progress, it's much more likely to be
    as a result of Microsoft customers' frustration with shoddy products
    like Vista, the Zune, the Xbox, and their pathetic "Live" services.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    15:26:36 up 56 days, 14:21, 2 users, load average: 0.24, 0.25, 0.26

  6. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    "[H]omer" wrote:
    >
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Doug Mentohl spake thusly:
    > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    > >> Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't
    > >> written in .NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.

    >
    > If that's the case, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it is, then
    > the question is /why/? I thought C# was supposed to be the best thing
    > since sliced doughnuts. MS /did/ have 6 years and 10 billion dollars to
    > rewrite Windows from scratch, (that /was/ the plan, right?), so why on
    > earth wouldn't they use their own beloved .NET framework for the job?
    >
    > Or does MS know something about .NET that we don't?
    >
    > And yes, .NET was not released until /after/ work on Vista began ... the
    > /first/ time around, but then the whole project (Longhorn #1) /was/
    > scrapped half way through, and they basically started over from scratch,
    > but apparently /still/ decided to not touch C#.
    >
    > Interesting.
    >
    > > I thought that Vista cam with 'managed code', which bits in Vista
    > > handle the managed code bits?

    >
    > The .NET framework has been available since February 13, 2002. Whether
    > or not it is shipped directly with any version of Windows, I don't know,
    > but I'd be surprised if it isn't included by default in Vista.
    >
    > That is /not/ the same thing as Vista being /written/ in C# though.
    >
    > As to whether or not .NET is somehow contributing to the downfall of
    > Microsoft, I doubt it, since it is predatory reinventions like .NET that
    > are designed to strengthen their monopoly, and by all accounts there is
    > nothing /technically/ wrong with .NET (unless, as I said, Microsoft know
    > something about it that we don't).


    First of all, the distribution called Vista consists of lots of pieces.
    Some make up the kernel, drivers and other associated components. Many
    other bits are utilities necessary to maintain Vista.

    The core (kernel) components of Vista aren't built with .NET because
    ..NET is a runtime library which has to run on top of a kernel. Making
    ..NET dependent on .NET would create an endless recursive loop.

    Its not a great idea to build the utilities to be dependent on .NET in
    the event the .NET runtime crashes and the utilities are needed to
    repair the system when .NET (inevitably) hangs.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has
    temporarily been turned off.

  7. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    "[H]omer" wrote:
    >
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Doug Mentohl spake thusly:
    > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    > >> Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't
    > >> written in .NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.

    >
    > If that's the case, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it is, then
    > the question is /why/? I thought C# was supposed to be the best thing
    > since sliced doughnuts. MS /did/ have 6 years and 10 billion dollars to
    > rewrite Windows from scratch, (that /was/ the plan, right?), so why on
    > earth wouldn't they use their own beloved .NET framework for the job?
    >
    > Or does MS know something about .NET that we don't?
    >
    > And yes, .NET was not released until /after/ work on Vista began ... the
    > /first/ time around, but then the whole project (Longhorn #1) /was/
    > scrapped half way through, and they basically started over from scratch,
    > but apparently /still/ decided to not touch C#.
    >
    > Interesting.
    >
    > > I thought that Vista cam with 'managed code', which bits in Vista
    > > handle the managed code bits?

    >
    > The .NET framework has been available since February 13, 2002. Whether
    > or not it is shipped directly with any version of Windows, I don't know,
    > but I'd be surprised if it isn't included by default in Vista.
    >
    > That is /not/ the same thing as Vista being /written/ in C# though.
    >
    > As to whether or not .NET is somehow contributing to the downfall of
    > Microsoft, I doubt it, since it is predatory reinventions like .NET that
    > are designed to strengthen their monopoly, and by all accounts there is
    > nothing /technically/ wrong with .NET (unless, as I said, Microsoft know
    > something about it that we don't).


    First of all, the distribution called Vista consists of lots of pieces.
    Some make up the kernel, drivers and other associated components. Many
    other bits are utilities necessary to maintain Vista.

    The core (kernel) components of Vista aren't built with .NET because
    ..NET is a runtime library which has to run on top of a kernel. Making
    ..NET dependent on .NET would create an endless recursive loop.

    Its not a great idea to build the utilities to be dependent on .NET in
    the event the .NET runtime crashes and the utilities are needed to
    repair the system when .NET (inevitably) hangs.

    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has
    temporarily been turned off.

  8. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:11:57 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't written in .NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.

    >
    > I thought that Vista cam with 'managed code', which bits in Vista handle
    > the managed code bits?


    You thought wrong.

    No surprise, since that's the usual case with you. I suppose you'll tell
    me I made up this quote too.

  9. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:28:13 +0100, [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Doug Mentohl spake thusly:
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    >>> Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't
    >>> written in .NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.

    >
    > If that's the case, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it is, then
    > the question is /why/? I thought C# was supposed to be the best thing
    > since sliced doughnuts.


    No. C# is just a langauge. It doesn't even have to compile to .net
    bytecode. There are native C# compilers out there.

    > MS /did/ have 6 years and 10 billion dollars to
    > rewrite Windows from scratch, (that /was/ the plan, right?)


    No. That was never the plan, though it was the plan to rewrite a large
    portion of it. There was also the plan for a .NET API layer on the OS,
    called WinFX.

    Be that as it may, no. Microsoft did *NOT* spend 6 years on Vista. They
    spent 2 years on Vista. The other 3 years (Vista was finished in 2006)
    were spent re-rwriting a large portion of XP for SP2 and 2003 SP1, both of
    which were finished in mid-2004. They also released Media Center and
    Tablet versions of XP during that time.

    > so why on
    > earth wouldn't they use their own beloved .NET framework for the job?


    If you don't understand why that is, you really haven't got a clue.

    > Or does MS know something about .NET that we don't?


    No, Microsoft and the world seem to know something about .NET that *YOU*
    don't.

  10. Re: Is .NET responsible for the downfall of Microsoft?

    On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:24:48 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:28:13 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Doug Mentohl spake thusly:
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Oh really? What does .NET have to do with Vista? Vista isn't
    >>>> written in .NET, nor are any of the shipped applications.

    >>
    >> If that's the case, and I'm quite prepared to believe that it is, then
    >> the question is /why/? I thought C# was supposed to be the best thing
    >> since sliced doughnuts.

    >
    >No. C# is just a langauge. It doesn't even have to compile to .net
    >bytecode. There are native C# compilers out there.
    >
    >> MS /did/ have 6 years and 10 billion dollars to
    >> rewrite Windows from scratch, (that /was/ the plan, right?)

    >
    >No. That was never the plan, though it was the plan to rewrite a large
    >portion of it. There was also the plan for a .NET API layer on the OS,
    >called WinFX.
    >
    >Be that as it may, no. Microsoft did *NOT* spend 6 years on Vista. They
    >spent 2 years on Vista. The other 3 years (Vista was finished in 2006)
    >were spent re-rwriting a large portion of XP for SP2 and 2003 SP1, both of
    >which were finished in mid-2004. They also released Media Center and
    >Tablet versions of XP during that time.
    >
    >> so why on
    >> earth wouldn't they use their own beloved .NET framework for the job?

    >
    >If you don't understand why that is, you really haven't got a clue.
    >
    >> Or does MS know something about .NET that we don't?

    >
    >No, Microsoft and the world seem to know something about .NET that *YOU*
    >don't.


    Interestingly, even GCC does .NET:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cli.html




+ Reply to Thread