|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
.NET 3.0 and XP?laptop rather than Vista. Mainly because I have the feeling Vista will not run much of the software I'm running now in XP. I guess MS has some type of tool to verify your software but I have a lot of smaller programs that MS doesn't know about and therefore can't verify. At the least, Vista will be full of errors. The XP setup I have now works and I'd like to keep it. Here's a couple of questions I have: 1.) I want to develop for the .NET 3.0 framework, which is just an install onto XP. But will I still have full access to all of the WPF features that are seen in Vista? In other words, will 3D, glass, curved windows, etc all be supported on XP? 2.) One other thing, I don't know of any companies planning to write software for Vista or .NET 3.0. It seems once you acquire a good set of .NET 3.0 skills, you have no where to use them (except at home on your own time of course). Comments? Thanks, Brett "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> wrote in message I would tend to disagree about your assertion that many apps won't run under news:1163269846.153735.303320@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > I'm planning to get a new laptop the beginning of 2007. I want an XP > laptop rather than Vista. Mainly because I have the feeling Vista will > not run much of the software I'm running now in XP. I guess MS has > some type of tool to verify your software but I have a lot of smaller > programs that MS doesn't know about and therefore can't verify. At the > least, Vista will be full of errors. The XP setup I have now works and > I'd like to keep it. Vista, but I do agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. > Here's a couple of questions I have: Probably not.> > 1.) I want to develop for the .NET 3.0 framework, which is just an > install onto XP. But will I still have full access to all of the WPF > features that are seen in Vista? In other words, will 3D, glass, > curved windows, etc all be supported on XP? > There really isn't much (if any) .NET 3.0 development going on yet. 2.0 is > 2.) One other thing, I don't know of any companies planning to write > software for Vista or .NET 3.0. It seems once you acquire a good set > of .NET 3.0 skills, you have no where to use them (except at home on > your own time of course). Comments? still relativley new and you won't see wide-scale 3.0 development for a while. Show quoteHide quote > > Thanks, > Brett > brett wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I'm planning to get a new laptop the beginning of 2007. I want an XP WPF works identically on XP and Vista.> laptop rather than Vista. Mainly because I have the feeling Vista > will not run much of the software I'm running now in XP. I guess MS > has some type of tool to verify your software but I have a lot of > smaller programs that MS doesn't know about and therefore can't > verify. At the least, Vista will be full of errors. The XP setup I > have now works and I'd like to keep it. > > Here's a couple of questions I have: > > 1.) I want to develop for the .NET 3.0 framework, which is just an > install onto XP. But will I still have full access to all of the WPF > features that are seen in Vista? In other words, will 3D, glass, > curved windows, etc all be supported on XP? Keep in mind though - the Vista GUI is NOT WPF. Rather, it's dozens of new native Win32 controls and 100's of new windows features built into GDI32 and USER32. > WPF is bleeding edge right now, so adopters will be few and far between > 2.) One other thing, I don't know of any companies planning to write > software for Vista or .NET 3.0. It seems once you acquire a good set > of .NET 3.0 skills, you have no where to use them (except at home on > your own time of course). Comments? until some "killer apps" for WPF hit the streets and everyone jumps on board. -cd > WPF works identically on XP and Vista. Many of the demonstrations I've seen with WPF show the windows using> > Keep in mind though - the Vista GUI is NOT WPF. Rather, it's dozens of new > native Win32 controls and 100's of new windows features built into GDI32 and > USER32. 3D, glass, etc. If I install .NET 3.0 on XP, which presentation features will I not be able to use because they are Vista only? > WPF is bleeding edge right now, so adopters will be few and far between Continue learning WPF is still a good strategy...hoping one day you can> until some "killer apps" for WPF hit the streets and everyone jumps on > board. apply those skills in the industry. It just seems chicking/egg at this point. LINQ will be extremely useful but how will people handle the very likely large resistance by their company to 3.0 upgrading? For those learning .NET 3.0, how are you going about it (work, home, etc)? Does any one have prospects of using it in production code? Thanks, Brett brett wrote:
>> WPF works identically on XP and Vista. 3D = WPF, Glass = Vista. I can't tell you exactly what the dividing line >> >> Keep in mind though - the Vista GUI is NOT WPF. Rather, it's dozens >> of new native Win32 controls and 100's of new windows features built >> into GDI32 and USER32. > > Many of the demonstrations I've seen with WPF show the windows using > 3D, glass, etc. If I install .NET 3.0 on XP, which presentation > features will I not be able to use because they are Vista only? is. WPF is all based on Styles, and Vista has a different set of default styles than XP. If your WPF is based entirely on your own styles, it will look identical on XP or Vista, if I understand things correctly. > I'm not using it in production code yet, but I expect to be using WCF in the >> WPF is bleeding edge right now, so adopters will be few and far >> between until some "killer apps" for WPF hit the streets and >> everyone jumps on board. > > Continue learning WPF is still a good strategy...hoping one day you > can apply those skills in the industry. It just seems chicking/egg at > this point. LINQ will be extremely useful but how will people handle > the > very likely large resistance by their company to 3.0 upgrading? > > For those learning .NET 3.0, how are you going about it (work, home, > etc)? Does any one have prospects of using it in production code? next couple months. WPF and Workflow will come in time. I have no use for CardSpace - at least not yet. -cd Thanks Carl. I guess in regards to which OS should I get for a new
laptop, that decision will be independent of what I want to develop for (2.0 or 3.0). The OS decision seems more personal rather than motivated by what is the best market. If I want Vista bells and whistles and feel ok about any large potential errors usually inherit with a new OS, Vista should be fine. If I want a guarentee of stability and that everything I have installed now will continue working, stay with XP. It doesn't matter in the way of development. In reply to Scott, I'll have to stay with my original opinion about incompatibility on Vista. There are already antivirus and firewall apps that do not work on Vista. Since I have many smaller unpopular apps, I'll never know if they work until I take the plunge. That's just to risky for me. I'm already using many of the programs listed here: http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_Software_Compatibility_List#Heavy_problems.2C_currently_incompatible. Brett Does any one know if it is possible to remote desktop into Vista from
XP and vice versa? Thanks, Brett brett wrote:
> Does any one know if it is possible to remote desktop into Vista from Yes and Yes.> XP and vice versa? -cd "Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cpdaniel_remove_this_and_nospam@mvps.org.nospam> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone being ha scritto nel messaggio news:OKNt$EdBHHA.996@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Keep in mind though - the Vista GUI is NOT WPF. Rather, it's dozens of > new native Win32 controls and 100's of new windows features built into > GDI32 and USER32. using WPF? What's it so good for? Massimo > So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone being Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which are> using WPF? What's it so good for? also not managed. "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs?news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? > > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which are > also not managed. Ok. But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET and purely managed code in its own products... Massimo All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, SQL,
SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some cases by years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take a while. The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The biggest problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, forward compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 apps will be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs the .NET 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the basic ..NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed code, the answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to the hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very nature is unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is completely managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. Digital Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. (OpenVMS is still around and being sold by HP.) Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written entirely in managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them to managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as the performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can be very, very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance between keeping the available, contiguous memory high and performance. Mike Ober. Show quoteHide quote "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone > >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? > > > > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which are > > also not managed. > > So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? > > Ok. > > But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET and purely > managed code in its own products... > > > Massimo > > Right you are Michael. But there are efforts underway at MS Research.
Check out the Singularity project: http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/ http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=68302 (this is a great video by the way) Brett Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that
went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft. The final product was called "Windows NT". Robin S. ------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:nQI5h.5487$0r.3302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, SQL, > SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some cases by > years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take a > while. > The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The biggest > problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, > forward > compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 apps will > be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs the .NET > 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the basic > .NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. > > As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed code, the > answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to the > hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very nature is > unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is completely > managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. Digital > Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. > (OpenVMS > is still around and being sold by HP.) > > Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written entirely in > managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them to > managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as the > performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can be very, > very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance between > keeping > the available, contiguous memory high and performance. > > Mike Ober. > > "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message > news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >> news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone >> >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? >> > >> > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which are >> > also not managed. >> >> So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? >> >> Ok. >> >> But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET and > purely >> managed code in its own products... >> >> >> Massimo >> >> > > > DEC never did understand the micro-computer revolution. They understood
that minis could replace a low end mainframes, but not that micros could replace low end minis. Compaq, who bought DEC, and HP, who bought Compaq have yet to figure out what to do with VMS. Mike. Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:xJGdnYexrfikwMrYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that > went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run > on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for > those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market > for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft. > > The final product was called "Windows NT". > > Robin S. > ------------------------- > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:nQI5h.5487$0r.3302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, SQL, > > SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some cases by > > years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take a > > while. > > The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The biggest > > problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, > > forward > > compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 apps will > > be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs the ..NET > > 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the basic > > .NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. > > > > As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed code, the > > answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to the > > hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very nature is > > unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is completely > > managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. Digital > > Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. > > (OpenVMS > > is still around and being sold by HP.) > > > > Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written entirely in > > managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them to > > managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as the > > performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can be very, > > very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance between > > keeping > > the available, contiguous memory high and performance. > > > > Mike Ober. > > > > "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message > > news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >> news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone > >> >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? > >> > > >> > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which are > >> > also not managed. > >> > >> So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? > >> > >> Ok. > >> > >> But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET and > > purely > >> managed code in its own products... > >> > >> > >> Massimo > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > You're right. I'm actually surprised they still sell OpenVMS, though.
I worked on DEC Vax's for years; I loved how easy it was to cluster the machines, run batch jobs, etc. There are probably even some PDP-11's out there still running today. Robin S. Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:cUO5h.6048$L6.2548@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > DEC never did understand the micro-computer revolution. They understood > that minis could replace a low end mainframes, but not that micros could > replace low end minis. Compaq, who bought DEC, and HP, who bought Compaq > have yet to figure out what to do with VMS. > > Mike. > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:xJGdnYexrfikwMrYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that >> went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run >> on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for >> those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market >> for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft. >> >> The final product was called "Windows NT". >> >> Robin S. >> ------------------------- >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> news:nQI5h.5487$0r.3302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> > All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, >> > SQL, >> > SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some cases >> > by >> > years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take a >> > while. >> > The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The > biggest >> > problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, >> > forward >> > compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 apps > will >> > be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs the > .NET >> > 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the >> > basic >> > .NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. >> > >> > As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed code, >> > the >> > answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to the >> > hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very nature is >> > unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is completely >> > managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. > Digital >> > Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. >> > (OpenVMS >> > is still around and being sold by HP.) >> > >> > Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written entirely > in >> > managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them to >> > managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as the >> > performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can be > very, >> > very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance between >> > keeping >> > the available, contiguous memory high and performance. >> > >> > Mike Ober. >> > >> > "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message >> > news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >> >> news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone >> >> >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? >> >> > >> >> > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which > are >> >> > also not managed. >> >> >> >> So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? >> >> >> >> Ok. >> >> >> >> But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET and >> > purely >> >> managed code in its own products... >> >> >> >> >> >> Massimo >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > Open VMS is on version 8.3 and runs on the Alpha and Itanium processors.
After watching the Channel9 video about managed OS's, it seems to me that MS might actually be better off simply buying VMS from HP and incorporating it into a future version of Windows. (My boss would have a heart attack if MS did this.) Mike. Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:QqOdneA-_thuZ8XYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > You're right. I'm actually surprised they still sell OpenVMS, though. > I worked on DEC Vax's for years; I loved how easy it was to cluster > the machines, run batch jobs, etc. There are probably even some > PDP-11's out there still running today. > > Robin S. > > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:cUO5h.6048$L6.2548@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > DEC never did understand the micro-computer revolution. They understood > > that minis could replace a low end mainframes, but not that micros could > > replace low end minis. Compaq, who bought DEC, and HP, who bought Compaq > > have yet to figure out what to do with VMS. > > > > Mike. > > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > > news:xJGdnYexrfikwMrYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that > >> went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run > >> on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for > >> those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market > >> for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft. > >> > >> The final product was called "Windows NT". > >> > >> Robin S. > >> ------------------------- > >> > >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >> news:nQI5h.5487$0r.3302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> > All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, > >> > SQL, > >> > SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some cases > >> > by > >> > years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take a > >> > while. > >> > The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The > > biggest > >> > problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, > >> > forward > >> > compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 apps > > will > >> > be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs the > > .NET > >> > 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the > >> > basic > >> > .NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. > >> > > >> > As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed code, > >> > the > >> > answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to the > >> > hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very nature is > >> > unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is completely > >> > managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. > > Digital > >> > Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. > >> > (OpenVMS > >> > is still around and being sold by HP.) > >> > > >> > Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written entirely > > in > >> > managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them to > >> > managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as the > >> > performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can be > > very, > >> > very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance between > >> > keeping > >> > the available, contiguous memory high and performance. > >> > > >> > Mike Ober. > >> > > >> > "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message > >> > news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> >> "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >> >> news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > >> >> >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should anyone > >> >> >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? > >> >> > > >> >> > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, which > > are > >> >> > also not managed. > >> >> > >> >> So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? > >> >> > >> >> Ok. > >> >> > >> >> But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET and > >> > purely > >> >> managed code in its own products... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Massimo > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Gosh, I didn't know they still sold Alphas. Makes me feel all nostalgic.
I was surprised that when MS developed NT using VMS, they didn't incorporate more of its functions in it. Some stuff looks so much like VMS, it's spooky -- ACLs and the backup/restore stuff come straight to mind. You're right, they should have incorporated more. Somehow, I don't think they're all that open to the idea. :-D Robin S. Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:aG76h.6682$ig4.2520@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Open VMS is on version 8.3 and runs on the Alpha and Itanium processors. > After watching the Channel9 video about managed OS's, it seems to me that > MS > might actually be better off simply buying VMS from HP and incorporating > it > into a future version of Windows. (My boss would have a heart attack if > MS > did this.) > > Mike. > > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:QqOdneA-_thuZ8XYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> You're right. I'm actually surprised they still sell OpenVMS, though. >> I worked on DEC Vax's for years; I loved how easy it was to cluster >> the machines, run batch jobs, etc. There are probably even some >> PDP-11's out there still running today. >> >> Robin S. >> >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> news:cUO5h.6048$L6.2548@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> > DEC never did understand the micro-computer revolution. They >> > understood >> > that minis could replace a low end mainframes, but not that micros >> > could >> > replace low end minis. Compaq, who bought DEC, and HP, who bought > Compaq >> > have yet to figure out what to do with VMS. >> > >> > Mike. >> > >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> > news:xJGdnYexrfikwMrYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that >> >> went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run >> >> on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for >> >> those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market >> >> for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft. >> >> >> >> The final product was called "Windows NT". >> >> >> >> Robin S. >> >> ------------------------- >> >> >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >> news:nQI5h.5487$0r.3302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> > All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, >> >> > SQL, >> >> > SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some >> >> > cases >> >> > by >> >> > years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take >> >> > a >> >> > while. >> >> > The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The >> > biggest >> >> > problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, >> >> > forward >> >> > compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 >> >> > apps >> > will >> >> > be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs >> >> > the >> > .NET >> >> > 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the >> >> > basic >> >> > .NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. >> >> > >> >> > As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed code, >> >> > the >> >> > answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to the >> >> > hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very nature > is >> >> > unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is >> >> > completely >> >> > managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. >> > Digital >> >> > Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. >> >> > (OpenVMS >> >> > is still around and being sold by HP.) >> >> > >> >> > Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written > entirely >> > in >> >> > managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them >> >> > to >> >> > managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as > the >> >> > performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can be >> > very, >> >> > very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance between >> >> > keeping >> >> > the available, contiguous memory high and performance. >> >> > >> >> > Mike Ober. >> >> > >> >> > "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message >> >> > news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> >> "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >> >> >> news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should > anyone >> >> >> >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, >> >> >> > which >> > are >> >> >> > also not managed. >> >> >> >> >> >> So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? >> >> >> >> >> >> Ok. >> >> >> >> >> >> But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET > and >> >> > purely >> >> >> managed code in its own products... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Massimo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > According to the letter we have from HP, the last Alpha sale order will be
accepted on Dec 30, 2006. I think the reason more of VMS didn't end up in NT was a combination of licensing and processor power. Remember, the 80386 processor wasn't nearly as powerful as a VAX processor. As for the licensing, DEC did threaten to sue MS over NT which is why DEC became the "preferred" NT support source for a while. Mike. Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:_9GdnXvVL_Tns8TYnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Gosh, I didn't know they still sold Alphas. Makes me feel all nostalgic. > > I was surprised that when MS developed NT using VMS, they didn't > incorporate more of its functions in it. Some stuff looks so much > like VMS, it's spooky -- ACLs and the backup/restore stuff come > straight to mind. You're right, they should have incorporated > more. Somehow, I don't think they're all that open to the idea. :-D > > Robin S. > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:aG76h.6682$ig4.2520@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> Open VMS is on version 8.3 and runs on the Alpha and Itanium processors. >> After watching the Channel9 video about managed OS's, it seems to me that >> MS >> might actually be better off simply buying VMS from HP and incorporating >> it >> into a future version of Windows. (My boss would have a heart attack if >> MS >> did this.) >> >> Mike. >> >> >> >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> news:QqOdneA-_thuZ8XYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> You're right. I'm actually surprised they still sell OpenVMS, though. >>> I worked on DEC Vax's for years; I loved how easy it was to cluster >>> the machines, run batch jobs, etc. There are probably even some >>> PDP-11's out there still running today. >>> >>> Robin S. >>> >>> >>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>> news:cUO5h.6048$L6.2548@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> > DEC never did understand the micro-computer revolution. They >>> > understood >>> > that minis could replace a low end mainframes, but not that micros >>> > could >>> > replace low end minis. Compaq, who bought DEC, and HP, who bought >> Compaq >>> > have yet to figure out what to do with VMS. >>> > >>> > Mike. >>> > >>> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>> > news:xJGdnYexrfikwMrYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >> Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that >>> >> went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run >>> >> on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for >>> >> those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market >>> >> for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft. >>> >> >>> >> The final product was called "Windows NT". >>> >> >>> >> Robin S. >>> >> ------------------------- >>> >> >>> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>> >> news:nQI5h.5487$0r.3302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> >> > All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & Server, >>> >> > SQL, >>> >> > SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some >>> >> > cases >>> >> > by >>> >> > years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will take >>> >> > a >>> >> > while. >>> >> > The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The >>> > biggest >>> >> > problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in general, >>> >> > forward >>> >> > compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 >>> >> > apps >>> > will >>> >> > be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs >>> >> > the >>> > .NET >>> >> > 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the >>> >> > basic >>> >> > .NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. >>> >> > >>> >> > As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed >>> >> > code, >>> >> > the >>> >> > answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to >>> >> > the >>> >> > hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very >>> >> > nature >> is >>> >> > unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is >>> >> > completely >>> >> > managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. >>> > Digital >>> >> > Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. >>> >> > (OpenVMS >>> >> > is still around and being sold by HP.) >>> >> > >>> >> > Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written >> entirely >>> > in >>> >> > managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them >>> >> > to >>> >> > managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well as >> the >>> >> > performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can >>> >> > be >>> > very, >>> >> > very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance >>> >> > between >>> >> > keeping >>> >> > the available, contiguous memory high and performance. >>> >> > >>> >> > Mike Ober. >>> >> > >>> >> > "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message >>> >> > news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> >> >> "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >>> >> >> news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should >> anyone >>> >> >> >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, >>> >> >> > which >>> > are >>> >> >> > also not managed. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Ok. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET >> and >>> >> > purely >>> >> >> managed code in its own products... >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Massimo >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > Well, that's the last of an era. It doesn't surprise me about the
litigation threat. Sort of Dog-in-the-manger of them -- we don't want to develop it for the desktop, and don't want you to, either. As if it would somehow slow down the deterioration of their sales. The whole thing is pretty interesting! Thanks for the info. I haven't talked to anyone in a long time who's heard of DEC or Vaxes or VMS. Robin S. Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:Oe$kb9$BHHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > According to the letter we have from HP, the last Alpha sale order will be > accepted on Dec 30, 2006. > > I think the reason more of VMS didn't end up in NT was a combination of > licensing and processor power. Remember, the 80386 processor wasn't > nearly as powerful as a VAX processor. As for the licensing, DEC did > threaten to sue MS over NT which is why DEC became the "preferred" NT > support source for a while. > > Mike. > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:_9GdnXvVL_Tns8TYnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Gosh, I didn't know they still sold Alphas. Makes me feel all nostalgic. >> >> I was surprised that when MS developed NT using VMS, they didn't >> incorporate more of its functions in it. Some stuff looks so much >> like VMS, it's spooky -- ACLs and the backup/restore stuff come >> straight to mind. You're right, they should have incorporated >> more. Somehow, I don't think they're all that open to the idea. :-D >> >> Robin S. >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> news:aG76h.6682$ig4.2520@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> Open VMS is on version 8.3 and runs on the Alpha and Itanium processors. >>> After watching the Channel9 video about managed OS's, it seems to me >>> that MS >>> might actually be better off simply buying VMS from HP and incorporating >>> it >>> into a future version of Windows. (My boss would have a heart attack if >>> MS >>> did this.) >>> >>> Mike. >>> >>> >>> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>> news:QqOdneA-_thuZ8XYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>> You're right. I'm actually surprised they still sell OpenVMS, though. >>>> I worked on DEC Vax's for years; I loved how easy it was to cluster >>>> the machines, run batch jobs, etc. There are probably even some >>>> PDP-11's out there still running today. >>>> >>>> Robin S. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>>> news:cUO5h.6048$L6.2548@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>> > DEC never did understand the micro-computer revolution. They >>>> > understood >>>> > that minis could replace a low end mainframes, but not that micros >>>> > could >>>> > replace low end minis. Compaq, who bought DEC, and HP, who bought >>> Compaq >>>> > have yet to figure out what to do with VMS. >>>> > >>>> > Mike. >>>> > >>>> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>>> > news:xJGdnYexrfikwMrYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>> >> Speaking of OpenVMS by DEC. Ironically, the guys who developed that >>>> >> went to DEC and told them they thought they could get OpenVMS to run >>>> >> on a desktop computer (it ran on a minicomputer, the DEC VAX, for >>>> >> those of you don't know). DEC told them they didn't see a market >>>> >> for it. So they quit and went to work for Microsoft. >>>> >> >>>> >> The final product was called "Windows NT". >>>> >> >>>> >> Robin S. >>>> >> ------------------------- >>>> >> >>>> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>>> >> news:nQI5h.5487$0r.3302@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>> >> > All the current major MS legacy products (Windows Desktop & >>>> >> > Server, >>>> >> > SQL, >>>> >> > SMS, Exchange, Office) have codebases that predate, and in some >>>> >> > cases >>>> >> > by >>>> >> > years, the .NET 2.0 framework. Replacing these codebases will >>>> >> > take a >>>> >> > while. >>>> >> > The newer products, such as WSUS are indeed written in .NET. The >>>> > biggest >>>> >> > problem with .NET is that net 1.0 applications are not, in >>>> >> > general, >>>> >> > forward >>>> >> > compatible with .NET 2.0. Fortunately, it appears that .NET 2.0 >>>> >> > apps >>>> > will >>>> >> > be able to run under .NET 3.0, especially since .NET 3.0 installs >>>> >> > the >>>> > .NET >>>> >> > 2.0 framework. Hopefully this is an indication MS will freeze the >>>> >> > basic >>>> >> > .NET 2.0 framework API and add features via new assemblies. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > As for whether or not an OS can be written entirely in managed >>>> >> > code, >>>> >> > the >>>> >> > answer is a resounding NO. At some point, every OS must talk to >>>> >> > the >>>> >> > hardware. The portion that talks to the hardware by its very >>>> >> > nature >>> is >>>> >> > unmanaged. However, it is possible to write an OS that is >>>> >> > completely >>>> >> > managed (and secure, by the way) except for the hardware drivers. >>>> > Digital >>>> >> > Equiment Corporation did just this feat back in the 70s with VMS. >>>> >> > (OpenVMS >>>> >> > is still around and being sold by HP.) >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Can products such as SQL, SMS, Exchange, and Office be written >>> entirely >>>> > in >>>> >> > managed code? The answer is YES. The two issues with moving them >>>> >> > to >>>> >> > managed code is a combination of a large legacy codebase as well >>>> >> > as >>> the >>>> >> > performance implications of managed code. Garbage Collectors can >>>> >> > be >>>> > very, >>>> >> > very expensive, though the GC in .NET strikes a good balance >>>> >> > between >>>> >> > keeping >>>> >> > the available, contiguous memory high and performance. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Mike Ober. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > "Massimo" <bar***@mclink.it> wrote in message >>>> >> > news:%23OqR0snBHHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> >> >> "brett" <acco***@cygen.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >>>> >> >> news:1163304277.703568.136720@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> So, if Vista's native Win32 controls are so good, why should >>> anyone >>>> >> >> >> being using WPF? What's it so good for? >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > Writing for WPF is a lot easier than native Vista libraries, >>>> >> >> > which >>>> > are >>>> >> >> > also not managed. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> So it's like using Windows Forms instead of native Win32 APIs? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Ok. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> But I still don't understand why even Microsoft is not using .NET >>> and >>>> >> > purely >>>> >> >> managed code in its own products... >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Massimo >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >  
Other interesting topics
Downgrading .Net 2 application to .Net 1.1
CSharp compiler error CS2000 CLR behavior about accessing data during garbage collection working Regular Expression Bug? Application.ProductVersion gives NullReferenceException How to send HTTPS-Post request using C# application?? Secure file transfer IFormatter custom implementation PropertyGrid, Custom UITypeEditor My Windows account do not have administrator priviliges anymore |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
