|
I would have voted the same if given the option, though I have a slightly different opinion. The masses don't need .NET, because there already is java and CORBA. The only person who needs .NET is Microsoft, so they can stay in the driving seat.;P
|
|
|
|
|
I am not talking about web apps - becuase to me that seems out of the context of this poll. The "masses" aren't running web servers, so they don't give a hoot what is on the server side, as long as it works in their browser.
But for desktop apps, obviously that issue of having the .NET redistributable on their machine is an issue. And before you say, "Oh, come on, they only have to download it once, and then they can run any .NET app they want". Not true. .NET is hardly "stable" in the sense that the .NET framework is still being actively developed. Won't VS 2005 come with .NET framework version 2? Well, then, everyone who has the dinosaur of version 1.0 is going to have to upgrade to run new apps depending on version 2's features. (And there's a high probability that a lot of developers won't take the time to write correct installer logic to check for this, and apps will fail miserably when run in the wrong framework, but I digress...)
Perhaps a several years in to the future, when new computers are being shipped with the .NET framework, the framework itself becomes pretty stable, and most people have upgraded their legacy machines, then will .NET become widespread on the desktop.
Just my opinion though. 
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely. Web apps are irrelevant - ASP.Net is a joy to work with compared to the legacy version available (barely) using InterDev in VS6. But users couldn't care less what creates the pages they view.
The rest of the .Net experience is dependent upon having the Framework installed on the user's machine. MS marketing talks about the numbers growing, but in reality the vast majority of user machines do not have it and probably won't for a long time to come. Savvy sysadmins have probably installed the Framework on most corporate machines by now, but average users don't have it. Worse, there are currently two, soon to be three, completely incompatible versions out there. That's going to be a challenge for programmers, especially (as you mention) those who write installers. They simply won't do it right. Most don't even bother to check for which version of Windows is installed - now they have to check for the correct version of the Framework? Not likely...
When the current, stable version of the .Net Framework is ubiquitous, then the .Net platform will be viable.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
Well, anyone that uses windows update should have the .NET framework as it is on there.
Signature under construction.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I don't think it's listed as a "critical update", which means even when using Windows Update, you'd have to explicitly look for it and pick it in order to get it installed.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
But it is installed with the service packs, and is included in all new Windows XP installations, and is of course included in Win2003 Server. Recent figures suggest 70 million internet connected machines have Everett (.NET 1.1) installed, which is not a shabby base by any means.
Of course, come 2006-7, Longhorn itself will be a managed OS built on .NET itself, certainly by then the framework will be almost ubiquitous.
What needs to happen in the meantime is Microsoft distributing the .NET framework with Office, Internet Explorer, default Windows installations, service packs, and critical Windows Update installs.
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
I have yet to see it on any machine not running XP, except my own. No one in his/her right mind will download the Framework without a broadband connection, and most people don't have one. Except for those few that have recently purchased new computers, nearly all small businesses and individuals I know are still using Win98/Me or NT, and are stuck on dialup connections. Unless they purchase a ridiculously overpriced Office product, they won't be using .Net for quite some time.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
Worse, there are currently two, soon to be three, completely incompatible versions out there.
Actually, they aren't completely incompatible. Apps written with an older version of the framework can run seamlessly on a newer version, but not the other way around.
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly agree with you.
I have a friend who I am writing software for, who said that he didn't want to download 20mb of .net crap to run my app. I switched to C++ and Win32.
Kyle
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I don't want install linux on my PC.
So it mean that masses don't ready for linux?
I think no.
Really, Microsoft .NET was created that masses was ready
for future operating system such as Longhorn.
I think Microsoft .NET it is a big Microsoft's experiment and
testing area to prepare masses for new generation of OS.
And I think, masses are ready for it know.
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
.NET is hardly "stable" in the sense that the .NET framework is still being actively developed. Won't VS 2005 come with .NET framework version 2? Well, then, everyone who has the dinosaur of version 1.0 is going to have to upgrade to run new apps depending on version 2's features. (And there's a high probability that a lot of developers won't take the time to write correct installer logic to check for this, and apps will fail miserably when run in the wrong framework, but I digress...)
That's what they used to say about MFC, COM, OpenGL, DirectX.
|
|
|
|
|
COM and OpenGL haven't changed much in th elast several years, I'd say they're stable. 
And MFC - even while it was in development, you had an easy out - you could simply statically link your programs to it, for a not-too-huge size cost.
COM came with all versions of Windows, I believe. DCOM almost did - I think Windows 95 needed a special update, but all the others had it. DirectX had a niche in games, as it won't run on Windows NT. I have seen far more OpenGL apps (not talking about games) than DirectX ones, becuase OpenGL exists on far more platforms.
And believe me, MFC apps *DO* run miserably if you have the wrong MFC dll's on your system. 
So there will likely be a time when .NET is ubiquitious, but that time is not now.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting view but really shouldn't the developers be distributing the re-distributable on CDs with there product? To say that .NET isn't ready just because users don't have the framework on their machine is just plain laziness on the part of developers IMHO. As for your point about developers not writing the correct installer logic, maybe they won't be employed much longer as developers if they don't. I would only hope that any company that is releasing software to the masses would realize that they need to test there software and installation packages before they ship it. If they did they should catch any such installation problems.
Just my 2 cents.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
I voted yes but very much agree it depends on the context. dotnet is simply used over to wide a spectrum. ASP.net, at least department level creation of web services, and for client consumption of web services seams solid enough for mass usage. Other areas are open.
I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted almost. For the simple reason that our code shall be obfuscated by default. We shouldn't have to obfuscate it everytime.
Well... Now... I think that .NET will be more and more web-based. I mean by that... that they're will be less and less desktop app and more and more of ASP.NET app.
What do you think ?
If someone says "Die mortal!", don't stay to see if he isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
hope not, asp.net sucks IMO. dont get me wrong I love C# and use it everyday, but it is almost there. its still a young platform. give it time, it will come around.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
Well.. I was more thinking about WinApp and WebApp, not the language.
I was meaning that there will be more and more of WebApp than WinApp.
By the way... ASP.NET can be used with any language.
Presently I code in C#
If someone says "Die mortal!", don't stay to see if he isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
I hope not! The WebApp concept is fine for a few applications but not for most general purpose ones like an Office Suite... Can you see someone using a Web based CAD or drawing application?
Thin clients are ok for simple things like data entry, but lack the power and are to slow for most applications.
There are to many examples of applications where the .NET framework can only ever be used as a wrapper layer...
MHO
|
|
|
|
|
I think dotnet (well I am also referring to VS.net) is very slow. We have been working on 1.8 GHz machines with 512 MB ram and it is deadly slow, specially for debugging a desktop application and WinForms controls. I am a C++ programmer and just love application performance issue by nature. I never thought .net will make it (comparing to the huge effort Microsoft is doing) since its first beta, but I could be wrong. By the way, I dont like Java too.
|
|
|
|
|
Worse, .NET apps eat memory like crazy. And unfortunately, you can't really tell your customers: memory is cheap these days - why don't you buy yourself a Gig or two of RAM?
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
I think M$'s thinking is to make programs run bad on good machines so people will still have to buy new computers to get a speed advantage. I mean look at their OS's...every "improved" version was designed to only work on good computers of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO No, because the masses don't have .NET is not a valid option, since the question is Is .NET ready for the masses and not Are the masses ready for .NET.
Regards
Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't run .NET if you don't have the .NET framework on your machine. So why is that not a valid option?
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
You can't run .NET if you don't have the .NET framework on your machine.
But in this case it's me (or at least my machine) who isn't ready.
Regards
Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahem, ASP.NET, only the server needs the framework.
Signature under construction.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
