Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Businesses Google Microsoft

Changing Climates for Microsoft and Google 393

Posted by Hemos
from the a-path-to-the-future dept.
ReadWriteWeb writes "Weather metaphors abound as this article looks at the evolving software environment — and in particular the competition between Microsoft and Google. Milan says that while Google enjoys relative dominance on the Web platform today, two fissures exist that will force them to move. The first is Microsoft's ability to use the exact same HTML based strategy as Google (like Microsoft's current Live initiative); and secondly Microsoft leapfrogging the current environment by solving rich application installation/un installation and enforcing an acceptable contract regarding what rich apps can do on a user's machine. Unfortunately for Google, Microsoft is a lot closer to solving these two issues than people think. Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET, the best development tool with Visual Studio and the best access to developers with their MSDN programs. And they have a notion. Steve Ballmer himself has started touting the exact strategy they need — Click Once and Run."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Changing Climates for Microsoft and Google

Comments Filter:
  • and Google has ... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thrillseeker (518224)
    ... respect.
    • by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:44AM (#17100362)
      That they do have respect.

      The nice letter to the guy developing the google-map data interface was a great show. And no C&D, just asking nicely.

      Im always amazed at companies acting ethically.
    • google is (Score:2, Insightful)

      by everphilski (877346)
      An advertizing company with a search engine [and other tools] to drive traffic to its advertizements.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by somersault (912633)
        It didn't start off that way, well as far as I remember, but still.. what's not to respect about a company that does its job well, and in an unobtrusive (compared to all the crappy flash ads and banners we have these days) way? Not that I usually look at the google ads either. In fact I think they're being blocked completely now with an ad blocker..
        • Re:google is (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jdray (645332) on Monday December 04, 2006 @01:10PM (#17101720) Homepage Journal
          I actually like the ads in GMail. They're context-sensitive, so when I'm chatting with one of my friends about the latest hare-brained idea (rocket boosters based on parafin/lox, personal VTOL aircraft, etc.), we get an on-going catalog of mostly-related products. Some of them have been very useful, and gotten us past some difficult engineering problems.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cloricus (691063)
          To be honest I tune out nearly all the ads I see. I some times click on the ones from /. because they are very well targeted and some times they coincide with a purchase we need to make at work. On the whole though when I'm looking to buy some thing I really only rely on Google ads as I have no interest in rewarding flash+bight colour ads. If I think about it I think the last ten things I've bought online on a whim have been from Google ads. Then again I miss the olden days on the web when there were no
      • Reductionist (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:59AM (#17100622) Homepage Journal

        An advertizing company with a search engine [and other tools] to drive traffic to its advertizements.

        Google's goal is to make information available and useful to people. They do so through a variety of means, and currently their profit model is based on advertising. It's tempting to reduce companies down to soundbytes, but it's not really useful for understanding how they operate or what they'll do in the future.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by everphilski (877346)
          "index the world's information" so we can make contextual advertisements - Google.

          That's all, folks. Seriously. Do as much research as you want. Advertisement is what makes the big $$$'s.
      • by tha_mink (518151)
        An advertizing company with a search engine [and other tools] to drive traffic to its advertizements.

        That's like saying that NBC or CBS is an advertizing (yikes...alwayz thought there waz an s in there) company with a camera.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          But, that is in fact what they are. How do you think they make money? The magic money fairy pays them for brodcasting free news?
    • by garcia (6573) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:49AM (#17100468) Homepage
      Yes they do, until their applications stop running. People aren't going to blame MSFT for their Google apps not working. They're going to blame Google. "It's Google's responsibility to make sure our stuff works on the MSFT platform. Not the other way around."

      People want their computers to run fast and easy. Aside from that, there are very few people that care how that is accomplished. So, if MSFT ensures that their computers are doing just that, they will have happier customers.

      MSFT has been known to make sure that certain applications do not run w/o changes on their OS and if you think that they won't do anything in their power to shut Google out, you're sadly mistaken.
      • People aren't going to blame MSFT for their Google apps not working. They're going to blame Google.

        This would be true if everyone is upgraded at the same time. If person "A", who recently upgraded hardware/OS to MS Vista, has a problem with a common application, they are very likely to talk to Person "B" about it who may not have upgraded yet. Before long, you'll have a growing populations that think:

        1) Application is broken
        2) Their new (Microsoft Vista based) computer is broken

        It's Google's re
  • by ummit (248909) <scs@eskimo.com> on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:37AM (#17100260) Homepage
    Steve Ballmer himself has started touting the exact strategy they need -- "Click Once and Run."

    That's just about the worst possible news. Microsoft's strategy of making it all-too-easy to install and run questionably-trustworthy code is why the email virus, web browser malware, and -- worst of all -- botnet problems have become the unsolveable epidemics that they are. Does anyone believe that Microsoft will actually get it right this time, in terms of introducing some practically workable mechanism for allowing only trustworthy code? (Not to mention the difficulty of meaningfully defining "trustworthy" in this context...)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by StrawberryFrog (67065)
      I'm ignoring mod points to reply to this. Do you know anything about code access security in .net? Can you tell me, for instance if .net code off running the internet has permission to read and write arbitrary files? Hint: starts with a "n".

      We're not talking about "will get it right ... introducing some practically workable mechanism for allowing only trustworthy code", We're talking talking about a model laid out in .net 1.0 and refined in 2.0 about a year ago.

      Do you in fact know anything about what you're
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by ivan256 (17499)
        Do you know anything about code access security in .net? Can you tell me, for instance if .net code off running the internet has permission to read and write arbitrary files? Hint: starts with a "n".

        In order to have a successful application, Microsoft will either have to disable that protection, or require users to store their documents on a remote server. Additionally, single click 'installs' will eliminate the 'code running off the internet' problem. Microsoft has to face the classic problem of making the
        • by StrawberryFrog (67065) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:12PM (#17100780) Homepage Journal
          In order to have a successful application, Microsoft will either have to disable that protection, or require users to store their documents on a remote server.

          Wrong. I said "Arbitrary files" not "any files". Go look up "isolated storage" - it allows a partially trusted app to read and write files, while ensuring that the only app that it is capable of messing with is itself. And what's so bad about remote servers? It works for gmail.
          This is yet more argument from ignorance.

          Additionally, single click 'installs' will eliminate the 'code running off the internet' problem.

          Wrong. Such code runs with partial trust, in the internet zone.

          Please, know what you're saying before replying.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Wrong. I said "Arbitrary files" not "any files". Go look up "isolated storage" - it allows a partially trusted app to read and write files, while ensuring that the only app that it is capable of messing with is itself. And what's so bad about remote servers? It works for gmail.
            This is yet more argument from ignorance.

            Maybe. But when you have an OS where major parts of the GUI subsystem run in ring 0 with many, many bugs in that subsystem, making installation of a trojan or a worm or other malware a simple

      • by xra (1021817)
        Knowing their record, isn't only fair to wonder ?
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ummit (248909)
        We're not talking about "will get it right ... introducing some practically workable mechanism for allowing only trustworthy code", We're talking talking about a model laid out in .net 1.0 and refined in 2.0 about a year ago.

        Neither of us will convince the other on this point, so I won't try.

        If, a year or two from now, .net 2.0 (or whatever version it's up to by then) is stable and secure, I will say, "Shit, I was wrong."

        I ask only: if, a year or two from now, there is some undreamt-of new "impossible

        • Since you ask, 2.0 is stable now, and 3.0 is likely to arrive within 2 years, but not so to arrive likely within one. I don't know of any internet malware written in .net. For the obvious reasons that would have to first break the Virtual machine's security.

          I've seen interesting ways to break the VM presented by Dinis Cruz, so I won't say it's impossible
          If in a few years "people are clicking once and getting pwned all the time" by .net code (it would have to do something like executing an escalation of pri
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by truthsearch (249536)
        I've written a fair amount of .net code to run within a private corporate network. I've never written anything to be run through the browser or "from the internet". But I was calling COM objects with no security limits. Does .net "off the internet" prevent COM or Win32 calls? Because if not a few lines of code can control the entire windowing system, and probably worse.

        In my experience .net is just a poor copy of java. This discussion is like the mid-1990's all over again. Virtual machines, sandboxes.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by StrawberryFrog (67065)
          Does .net "off the internet" prevent COM or Win32 calls?

          That is correct: It would require the UnmanagedCodePermission, which code in the Internet or Local Internet zone does not have. You know, if you can think of a hole in 5 minutes, the .net team might just have covered in in the last 5 or so years.

          In my experience .net is just a poor copy of java.

          Well, I prefer c# to Java, I found it to be an improved copy. But your mileage may vary.
    • No Shit.. but you're asking a question that was already answered in the summary. You know, that "second problem" they mentioned: <i>"enforcing an acceptable contract regarding what rich apps can do on a user's machine"</i>
      <br><br>
      Hey, I didn't RTFA either, but at the very least I RTFAS.

    • by suv4x4 (956391)
      Steve Ballmer himself has started touting the exact strategy they need -- "Click Once and Run."

      That's just about the worst possible news.


      Yup, defending Linux as a viable desktop platform becomes harder and harder.
  • A completely flammable post, before I even commented! Tighten your seatbelts!
  • Visual Studio (Score:3, Informative)

    by Explodo (743412) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:39AM (#17100298)
    I'd have to say that Visual Studio pretty much rocks. I use it for c++ development only, and am very happy with it. If linux had any dev environment that was ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Shaman (1148)
      Eclipse? KDevelop? Emacs?
      • Again (Score:4, Insightful)

        by shaneh0 (624603) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:49AM (#17100464)
        <quote>Eclipse? KDevelop? Emacs?</quote>

        Again.. If linux had any dev environment that was ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it.
        • by LWATCDR (28044)
          I would suggest that you take a look at Eclipse CDT.
          No it still isn't as good as VS but it is multi-platform and developing quickly.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Explodo (743412)
            "Development tools"

            Let's look at those words:

            Development: I'm gonna write some code to get some jobs done
            Tools: Things I use to write the code to get some jobs done.

            I wouldn't buy a hammer that's still "developing quickly" but not ready for prime time, I'd buy a hammer that's ready to use! In fact, if someone gave me a free hammer, and said, "It may or may not work for now, but in a couple of years it'll work great!" I'd go out and buy myself a hammer that already works in spite of the increased i
            • Re:Again (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Ginger Unicorn (952287) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:18PM (#17100866)
              no, but an IDE isnt a hammer. You are implying that Eclipse wont function as an IDE because it isnt finished yet. That isnt true. It simply hasnt matched every single feature of VS yet.

              Put it this way - if someone offered you a moderately featured family sedan for free, would you turn it down because you'd rather buy a formula 1 car that can go 80mph faster?

              perhaps you need to go 200mph. most people dont.

              its an even more tempting proposition when you factor in the the family sedan maker will automatically upgrade you car every year until eventually it does go as fast a formula 1 car.
        • Mod parent up. Visual Studio is one thing that Microsoft does well.
          Eclipse is great for Java. If you want to do C / C++, you have to use CDT. It's not so bad, but it's not on par with Visual Studio.
          KDevelop - If you look in Article 7, Section 8, Paragraph 27 of the Geneva Convention, you'll notice that you can't legal be forced to use KDevelop.
          Emacs - I found a faster text editor with the same features of emacs: "wine /opt/winc/Windows/notepad.exe".
        • While I generally agree that VC is one of the best development IDEs out there (and I have used several open source alternatives, namely for coding in different languages), it has some glaring bugs that make me want to rip my hair out.

          VC 2003 had (and still has) an extremely annoying bug in its shortcut code whereby a compulsive ctrl-c and ctrl-v user like myself (in fact I've never quite determined which shortcut combination triggers it) can result in the end of a source file being duplicated twice. (So,

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by everphilski (877346)
        Eclipse is buggy as hell in a C++ environment, not to mention sloooow. (even my Java friends who are evangelists for the program will concede it is not worth it for a C++ developer) KDevelop - depends upon what you are building with. There are issues depending on your coding convention (extensionless headers, Qt builds, etc). I refuse to touch Emacs with a 39 and a half foot pole.

        That being said I do my linux development under vi. But under windows I use VS. VS excels beyond any open-source replacement t
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ivan256 (17499)
          I refuse to touch Emacs with a 39 and a half foot pole.

          You refuse to use the best application out there for the task at hand, and then you complain that there isn't a good application out there?

          What do potential employers think when they see "Intimidated by complex software" on your resume?
        • by shaneh0 (624603) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:26PM (#17100998)
          "I refuse to touch Emacs with a 39 and a half foot pole"

          Perhaps, then, my penis would be of some assistance?
      • Eclipse was a slow piece of crap when we used it at University (though admittedly that was running on a Sun terminal running on a server with quite a few other users..), don't have experience of the second, and isn't Emacs just an editor (excuse my ignorance ;) ) ?

        I enjoyed using the Visual C++ 6 IDE, it's one of the few MS applications other than Exchange which I think is worth any money..
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      I would recommend the Eclipse CDT - it does C and C++, works on Windows with MinGW, Linux or Mac with GCC, and has far more descriptive syntax highlighting than VC++.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Viol8 (599362)
      "ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it."

      If you're a half decent programmer you'd be able to code just as well with a text editor as with an IDE. That fact that you imply you can't says more about you than the linux dev enviroment.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Explodo (743412)
        This is the attitude that's holding linux back. IDE's aren't bad things. A good IDE makes life easier for everyone. Both experts and novices can get things done with a good IDE. Using only a text editor and command line interfaces makes it so that only the greatly experienced can get anything done, thereby giving those who've mastered it the feeling of l337-ness that makes them think that anyone who prefers using an IDE is an incompetent fool. Elitist attitudes and awkward tools aren't going to advance
    • by flooey (695860)
      I'd have to say that Visual Studio pretty much rocks. I use it for c++ development only, and am very happy with it. If linux had any dev environment that was ANYWHERE NEAR as good as VC++, maybe I wouldn't despise working on it.

      Interestingly, I had to use VS for working on a C# project last year, and I was somewhat surprised at how it could do so much intricate stuff while at the same time totally screwing up some basic features.

      For instance, if you've got a line that's calling some overloaded method a
  • It was written like a monkey on crack. And damn those "global warming" analogies.

    Might as well had the Enzyte "Knock on wood" guy there as well shaking his stick...
  • by Anonymous Coward

    AdBlock has blocked 19 out of 39 items

    so nearly 50% of the page is adverts
    sad

    • only if the total area of the screen occupied by those 19 hidden items is the nearly the same as the total area taken up by content. it could have blocked 19 64x64 gifs for all you know.
  • by stile99 (1004110) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:41AM (#17100334)
    Run where? Screaming from the room? For the border?
  • Click once and run, sure, but run what? The program I wanted, or some spyware installing, DRM-adding beast app? Google has a huge competitive advantage in that they don't need to lock people in with that stuff in order to enjoy success. They simply make apps that perform well, and for some reason people continue to use those. Over time, .Net's massive overhead and microsoft's high licensing costs will cripple upstart developers. These developers will turn to OSS alternatives for cost and other benefits, it's only a matter of time. Microsoft may maintain a large market share, but Google will not "lose" because they're doing something different, even if the end result is a similar set (from a stratospherically high-level view) of apps.
    • Google provides software services. You go to Google to get directions, information, maps, images, etc. You use their rich web apps.

      MS provides tools for creating rich web apps. Sure, they produce some of their own apps (MSN Search, Live, etc...) to compete with Google. But their tool-set for the most part the best IDE in the industry. This allows any Joe-Schmoe coder to kick out rich web apps. They have an an amazingly robust VM in the .Net framework, which competes excellently against Java. (And that compe
      • by gmuslera (3436)
        From my point of view, google focus is data, with some "sample" programs to access it (but for most, open apis/interfaces/open protocols to access that data in your own way/apps). Its own programs enables more integrated, usually more comfortable, access to that data, but you can still access most of it in other ways (apis for maps/calendars/etc, pop for gmail, jabber for talk, etc)

        In the other hand, MS focus programs, and all goes around them. User data, apis, hardware, etc tied to those programs. That tie
  • Click Once (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:43AM (#17100358) Journal
    Click Once is the biggest problem with MS software. Already we have zero click and back door click software installs. It is the bane of my daily chores to remove and recover from web based installs and applications. As a system administrator, having to run in a windows environment I struggle daily to remind the users to NOT INSTALL SOFTWARE FROM THE INTERNET.

    I hate Google Toolbar, Yahoo Toolbar and all the others not because those two are not useful, because they are, but rather because they condition the user to install EVERY FREAKING "IE Toolbar" out there. No Toolbars, period!

    Your average user is a clueless idiot, and will click install all sorts of crap as long as he thinks it is okay. IT IS NOT OKAY! IE7 is the latest and greatest FOOBAR automatic install from Microsoft. Hey Microsoft, having IE7 automatically install with automatic updates is a really stupid idea, fire the asshat who signed off on that one. Not everyone is running PIV with a gig of ram necissary to run IE7.

    So, as for the "click once and run" crap, keep it to yourselves!
    • Click once and an annoying animation comes up asking you what you really wanted to do.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by suv4x4 (956391)
      Click Once is the biggest problem with MS software. Already we have zero click and back door click software installs.

      Ok, mister, let me know how many clicks make a trojan installer into a non-trojan.

      3, 5, 20? Throw in shell commands? Throw in compilation? Throw in configuration, dependencies? And still nothing stops you from installing a trojan this way.

      So what stops you? Trusted sources. And when it's truster, one click is just the right amount of clicks for it to be safe.

      Also .NET apps running from the br
      • So what stops you? Trusted sources. And when it's truster, one click is just the right amount of clicks for it to be safe.


        By definition, there are no trusted sources on an untrusted network. As long as I'm on a network where I can fake being you, there is almost nothing anyone can do to verify with 100% certainty that you are really you.
    • by bmajik (96670)
      My understanding of clickOnce is that administrators have a large degree of control (via policies) of what an and user can click-once run. Infact, i think you ahve to explicitly trust a clickonce server via a policy installation before C-O from that server can run.

      For that matter, IIRC domain admins can set Group Policy appropriately to prevent Browser Addon installations alltogether.

      So while I agree that users shouldn't be installing dumb software from the internet, I disagree that your hands are tied and
  • This article, part one even, outright dismisses Linux. Not even Oracle is doing that... not much more I need to read in that article even if they do have a valid point or two. Google doesn't even have to release its own OS, all it has to do is begin favoring Linux distributions strongly and MS loses that section of the market, how ever big that might be or might not be.

    The point is that anyone that outright dismisses Linux is missing the point altogether... anyone can use it and in using it, it is not like
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by shaneh0 (624603)
      "Google doesn't even have to release its own OS, all it has to do is begin favoring Linux distributions strongly and MS loses that section of the market"

      Are you suggesting that people would leave behind Windows to follow some Google applications?

      Maybe, in 5 years, if Google builds a killer-app that is anything CLOSE to Microsoft Office AND Microsoft totally fucks everything up.
    • by Almahtar (991773)
      True that. I mean, "click once and run" sure sounds a lot like Debian's repository system to me. I open synaptic, click the name of the program I want, hit "install", and the software I want is downloaded from a signed, trusted repository.

      There's a reason this stuff is catching on, and it's not the marketing budget, that's for sure.
  • Qualify Best (Score:5, Insightful)

    by micromuncher (171881) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:46AM (#17100414) Homepage
    [Microsoft has the best virtual machine and IDE.]

    Using persuasive language without a qualification comes accross as marketing FUD. Please qualify "best" for us. .NET is a suite of tools, some old, some new. Each has a set of strength and/or weakness depending on your point of view. For example, C# and its ability to sidestep strong typing and security server/client side, VBA client side and its ability to drive a lot of client side integration (Office Automation), complicated by the fact most enterprise make this almost impossible with default desktop security, Studio with a serious bent on good integration with anything Microsoft but not so good with anything else... coupled with documentation that is completely outdated on MSDN (OLE Object Stream initialization for embedded controls). There are some serious architectual flaws in the whole attempt to integrate OLE/OCX with web pages and services (including support of archaec pre-web stuff.) Extended clip board support... Complexity injected via SOAP/XSL...

    So please qualify "best". Because its not reduced complexity, increased quality, best reliablity, best scalability, best security, shortest delivery time, easy integration, or fastest performance...
  • by zarthrag (650912) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:47AM (#17100430)
    "Click Once And Run"...Away?
  • ClickOnce (Score:5, Insightful)

    by outcast36 (696132) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:50AM (#17100470) Homepage
    I agree that Microsoft does have a very nice development approach, but to claim that ClickOnce [microsoft.com] is comparable to todays HTML/Javascript applications is really reaching. Corporate Users will likely have this ability (once the organization deploys .NET 2.0 runtime), but expecting Windows Live or Yahoo to give up on the AJAX binge for ClickOnce deplyoments is not likely. ClickOnce is more like Java Web Start [sun.com]. We've had that technology for years now, but for some reason, these web apps persist.
  • by toetagger1 (795806) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:50AM (#17100472)
    Click Once and Run
    Shouldn't that read "Click Once, and Reboot"?

    Given, Microsoft has a lot of legacy technology and platforms that give them an edge moving forward. But you cannot ignore the other part of the momentum this technology carries with it. All the bugs, limiting architectures, and requirements for legacy support makes it harder to go into a new direction.

    My prediction is that the more the environment changes, the bigger an advantage the newer players gain over the large, legacy companies that build their company on incremental products, like Microsoft does with Windows.
  • Microsoft has never really had a direct threat it its business that could actually compete at the same level. Sure they have had someone up against them in one way or another, but I think we can all agree that Google is the first real threat to what Microsoft does. Apple never really had much going against Microsoft to threaten them and Microsoft invited competition with the Zune, which is new either way. The XBox is the only real example and many would argue that they are doing very well with that system.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DLG (14172)
      Microsoft has never really had a direct threat it its business that could actually compete at the same level.

      I will give a fast list of companies. Some of them you may have heard of.

      Apple

      IBM (OS/2)

      Novell (Netware)

      Sun (Java, Solaris)

      Lotus (Ever heard of Lotus 123?)

      WordPerfect (I always thought that Microsoft DOS Word 3.0 was a brilliant WP. Very little interface. WordPerfect was clearly the big dog and it still has penetration in the legal field)

      Netscape

      It is true that many of these competitors we

  • What MS Doesn't Have (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nate nice (672391) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:51AM (#17100494) Journal
    They have .NET which is greta and all, but for the Web they leverage ASP.net which is still a dinosaur of an idea.

    Google has GWT, which only about 100 people on Earth get right now. Google has an understanding for the Web, Web applications and how users should interact in the World Wide Web far surpassing MS's "reactive" method of toolkit design.

    I see two companies. One which is using old methods, not innovating or developing new ideas and assuming stability in something as fast moving and cutting edge as the WWW. I see another company challenging old ideas (relatively old anyways) and proving the WWW is more than Web Pages and stateless client/server communication.

    I see a company that think they get this but only see flashy UI's as the means to the end here. I see another company that understand the UI is just a view to this new idea that the Web is a series of intercommunicating applications users can access from anywhere.

    But then, I don't expect many people, especially a monolith who's made their fortunes through brute strength rather than new ideas, to see this until it's apparently obvious. The search for the holy grail of the Web's next "killer app" is right in front of peoples faces.
    • by nate nice (672391)
      I should note before someone flips out on me that I've worked in ASP.net for way too long. I know it's not "stateless" as it might appear I implied. I understand the "Postback" idea and the Session variable as well as things to help programmers like the View State, etc.

      These ideas are, as I implied, dinosaurs.
  • by rjdegraaf (712353) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:52AM (#17100508)
    You can try for yourself:

    on www.google.com search for 'microsoft':
    Results 1 - 10 of about 393,000,000

    on search.live.com search for 'google':
    google page 1 of 751 results

    I like my search results 'unbiased', so I choose google.
    • Ever notive how many meaningless pages you get in Google searches? By page 3 or 4 you are down to trash ... ad-ridden meaningless link pages. Search results beyond 100 are mostly meaningless. live.com does a better job of filtering out the garbage, probably because it is less popular and hasn't been 'gamed' as much as google.com has.
    • by SashaMan (263632) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:27PM (#17101012)
      I originally thought your comment was trolly, but it actually turns out to be true, especially if you compare all possible cases:

      Google searching "microsoft": 39,500,000 results
      Google searching "google": 52,800,000 results
      MSN searching "microsoft": 80,139,835 results
      MSN searching "google": 648 results

      I can understand leaning a little more one way or the other, but 648 versus 52 million? Give me a friggin break.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by recursiv (324497)
        I turned off adult content filtering in the options:


        google
        Page 1 of 65,601,473 results


        Very strange
  • and Run For Cover
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Monday December 04, 2006 @11:57AM (#17100598)
    Google enjoys relative dominance on the Web platform today

    "Dominance" is easy as long as you don't intend to charge for it. If Google puts a price on Google's free-as-in-beer service offerings, alternatives will start to look more attractive.

    (I don't run Google ad/spyware software (e.g., the Google toolbar) here because I don't like other people's software phoning home; I don't think the "advertising on everything" gambit will work on my dev tools either.)
  • enforcing an acceptable contract regarding what rich apps can do on a user's machine.
    Acceptable contract? Is this ActiveX? Java's sandbox? IE settings? Something else? (Folks, it's been tried before...)
  • Have you actually used visual studio? it degrades to a useless piece of rubbish after a few months.

    It may be better than Googles offering (nothing) but probably isn't better than eclipse/jbuilder.

    And after using both Java and .NET I would say that they are on equal footing, except Java is more mature, open source has things like EJB etc....
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by W2k (540424)
      Have you actually used visual studio? it degrades to a useless piece of rubbish after a few months.

      This is news to me, since I've been working off the same Visual Studio 2005 installation for almost 10 months now. Only time it got dreadfully slow was when I tried using a refactoring tool called Resharper [jetbrains.com]. Since I uninstalled that, VS has been zippy. Before switching to VS2005, I believe I had a VS2003 installation that was several years old.
    • by Trillan (597339)
      Without a doubt, Visual Studio is the least capable - and most frustrating - IDE I've ever used. Intellisense is so buggy as to be almost impossible to work wtih.
      • by Almahtar (991773) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:59PM (#17101524) Journal
        I worked on a codebase of several hundred thousand lines over the summer, all on VS 2005. I was excited to see what all the buzz was about for myself. Intellisense constantly lied about which functions call others (example: it told me a function called itsself while I was looking at it - all 5 lines of it - and it clearly did not...). It constantly jumped to forward declarations when I asked where definitions were. The toolbar buttons would change their placement on occasion, and I would have to put them back. The program they provide for browsing the Windows API documentation frequently crashed (especially when left minimized for a half hour or so).

        One of my favorite "features" was when I would tell Visual Studio to close and it would decide what I really meant was "update your intellisense then close". Great. With a project that size updating intellisense took about 2 minutes. I don't need intellisense updated right now, because I can't use it if you're closed. Just close.

        The real clincher, though, was the "crash-on-debug" error that started plaguing the office. When you tell VS to "build and debug" it would build the program and then seg fault immediately. That's a serious pain with a large project because it takes a few minutes to load it again. To debug, you'd have to build the program then run it manually and then manually attach the process for debugging. This bug would strike staff at random, and the only solution was to do a complete rebuild of the entire project, non-distributed. This could take hours.

        With the amount of talent in that office and the amount of frustration at that crash, we could have just fixed the bug ourselves and saved a lot of time if the product in question was open source, but it wasn't.

        Visual Studio has cost that company a lot of money in wasted man hours.
  • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:10PM (#17100766) Homepage
    Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET

    If it's the best then why doesn't it work on a Mac or Linux?
  • You mean, like Java Webstart?

    *ducks*
  • Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET, the best development tool with Visual Studio and the best access to developers with their MSDN programs.

    Presumably, the author means best as in 'best for deploying Google-type web applications.' In that case, he is probably correct that MSDN is the strongest developer support program, but on the other points he is verging on fantasy.

    Google's web applications are very successful because it has employed a bunch of really bright back-end/modeling architects, an
  • I really wish they would include the canvas tag in their next version of Internet Explorer. This would make the door wide open for an endless number of thin applications using cool graphics. But alas, there is not yet a standard for browser rendering of pixel graphics. It wouldn't be surprising if Microsoft tried to sabotage the inclusion of the canvas tag in web pages because using such powerful features in the browser would be against their rich client policy.

    Have currently been using the canvas tag mysel
  • by sgt scrub (869860) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <muitnias>> on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:21PM (#17100934)
    Microsoft has the best virtual machine with .NET, the best development tool with Visual Studio and the best access to developers with their MSDN programs.

    1) The best virtual machine runs on my platform and preferably others. .NET only runs on Windows. Therefore, .NET could not be the best virtual machine for any platform other than Windows.

    2) The best development tool runs on my platform and allows me to write applications that run on my platform an preferably others. Visual Studio does not run on anything other than Windows and makes it difficult to write application that will run on any platform other than Windows. Therefore, Visual Studio could not be the best development tool.

    3) The developers I look for write software for my platform and preferably others. The majority of developers available through MSDN are focused on developing Windows software using Windows development tools. Therefore, MSDN is not the best way to access developers.
  • HTML is not code (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saforrest (184929) on Monday December 04, 2006 @12:55PM (#17101482) Homepage Journal
    Consider two classic applications for two platforms. One is more or less owned by Microsoft, the other more or less owned by Google. The apps are familiar to every programmer: 'Hello World' done in C++ and HTML.

    Repeat after me:

    HTML is not code.
    HTML is not code.
    HTML is not code.

    What is not shown is the C++ compiler and linker that turns code into executable. Also not shown is the web browser which takes HTML and makes it presentable. And that's really the only difference between these two programs.

    That and, I don't know, Turing completeness?
  • by ZiZ (564727) on Monday December 04, 2006 @01:27PM (#17102004) Homepage
    Amazon vs. Microsoft for One-Click operations
    Lindows vs. Microsoft for Click and Run operations
    Pringles vs. Microsoft for Once You Pop, You Can't Stop operations

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...