MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Erik Funkenbus » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00





>>If everyone implemented the J/Direct COM interfaces for different
>>processors (and wrapped other platforms in terms of the J/Direct COM
>>interfaces), then we can carry on with what we have, and yet still have the
>>potential for platform neutral applications:  

>Yes, if Microsoft were licensing their proprietary COM interfaces, the
>way Sun is licensing the open Java interfaces, what you say might be true.

COM interfaces are not liscensable.  They're public domain.  COM is
controlled by the Open Group, and anyone can implement any interface
they want without liscensing.

Quote:>> It's a threat to the industry.  For the Internet, 100% Pure could be useful
>> - if you want to please 100% of your audience 100% of the time.  When
>> people mistake the Internet for the rest of the industry, that's when
>> problems will occur. People get a fair deal for the hardware they're using,
>> whatever that hardware is.  So why should they upgrade?

>> As a result, nobody ever upgrades their hardware - nobody ever upgrades the
>> technology in their software:  A stale industry.

>So you are arguing that because portable Java offers people a way to
>continue using their systems, instead of having to upgrade every
>9 months, it's a *bad* thing?!    That's certainly a novel argument.

There is a difference between "doesn't have to" and "can't upgrade
without fear of violating the holy sun 100% pure java liscense"

remove the _x at the end of my address to reply.

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Steven C. Den Best » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00





> > > I don't have a problem with JDirect as long as 100% of Java is
> > > supported. After all Apple does the same with their next OS. But I

> > Apparently Visual Basic is interpreted bytecode, and the next version
> > of Visual Basic will use JVM bytecode. So it IS sort of necessary if
> > they are going to dump the old VB format, they can't replace it with
> > something that performs worse.

> ref http://www.techweb.com/wire/news/june/0622ie.html
> about "Vegas"

Your excellent reference makes clear that "Vegas" will permit generation
of Java bytecode output, but that is not the only option. Standard
VB PCode and binary executables will remain an output option as well.

--
 Den Beste, Steven C.



 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Michael Warn » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00




>Forget it that'll never happen after all it's not Microsofts intention
>to reach any cross platform capability in any way. They have a history
>of plugging non cross platform stuff into their API's (DCOM vs. Corba,
>OpenGL vs. D3D, Com vs. Corba and SOM, OLE vs. OpenDoc etc....)

Your mention of "OpenGL vs. Direct3D" is a bit unfair - MS do support
OpenGL. I have some cute screensavers and GLQuake running at 0.2fps (!!) to
prove it :-) Gotta start saving for that 3dfx card...

They came up with Direct3D as a * interface to 3D hardware - its
design is quite different to that of OpenGL, which is monolithic, complex
and powerful. However, OpenGL is easier to use, and hardware-specific
implementations are just as quick, if still immature and incomplete. A
bunch of game companies led by id are pressuring MS to tie OpenGL into
DirectX to place it on an equal footing with Direct3D wrt efficiency and OS
support. Technically easy, but politically difficult :-)

Regarding OLE vs OpenDoc, I believe that OLE was out there well before
OpenDoc appeared in the mass market (the Mac?), so they weren't exactly
subverting an established standard.

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Wayne Li » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00





> Your excellent reference makes clear that "Vegas" will permit generation
> of Java bytecode output, but that is not the only option. Standard
> VB PCode and binary executables will remain an output option as well.

Does it mean VB is the sure win tools on Win32 platform? If it does, then
VB can't go away from the corp.

wayne

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by John Woo » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



Quote:> Forget it that'll never happen after all it's not Microsofts intention
> to reach any cross platform capability in any way.

That's not necessarily true.  It does make for good marketing - it's solely
what Java is riding on.  They can use it, they can support cross platform
via a COM spec for the platform, but use their existing implementation to
give them the lead that will always put them ahead of competition.  They
hear people complaining of proprietry technologies being too risky to
deploy, and this would be their solution - and would still make great
business sense.

Quote:>They have a history
> of plugging non cross platform stuff into their API's (DCOM vs. Corba,
> OpenGL vs. D3D, Com vs. Corba and SOM, OLE vs. OpenDoc etc....)

DCOM and COM are platform independent (they're just specs - and are owned
by independent entities).  OLE (ActiveX) is platform independent in that it
does not feature any specifics of the Windows platform - again, it's just a
spec. Anyone can match it.  Your statement is mostly untrue.

John Wood

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Tim Smi » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



>Regarding OLE vs OpenDoc, I believe that OLE was out there well before
>OpenDoc appeared in the mass market (the Mac?), so they weren't exactly
>subverting an established standard.

Hell, OLE was on the Mac before OpenDoc.  When OpenDoc was just another
neat sounding thing that Apple said was coming "soon", Microsoft was
distributing the Mac OLE development kit free as an insert in MacTech
magazine.

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Michael P. McCutcheo » Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:00:00



> I don't have a problem with JDirect as long as 100% of Java is
> supported. After all Apple does the same with their next OS. But I
> have a problem by not supporting crucial parts of the VM thus allowing

> a market split in the future (e.g. JNI)

I agree...microsoft can add all the *to Java they want, as long as
they still support 100% pure java.  If they don't support 100% pure
java, then I think their competitors could use that lack of support
against them.  Microsoft would be foolish if it dropped support for 100%
pure apps.

--
__________________________
Michael P. McCutcheon
VRML Guide:
http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Erik Funkenbus » Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:00:00


On 22 Jun 1997 14:05:17 -0400, Timothy Watson



>> I don't have a problem with JDirect as long as 100% of Java is
>> supported. After all Apple does the same with their next OS. But I

>Apparently Visual Basic is interpreted bytecode, and the next version
>of Visual Basic will use JVM bytecode. So it IS sort of necessary if
>they are going to dump the old VB format, they can't replace it with
>something that performs worse.

Well, non-compiled VB is p-code.  Compiled VB now compiles to native
code.

remove the _x at the end of my address to reply.

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by John Jense » Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:00:00



: > You felt you were "forced to use something immature, inadequate and
: > inflexble?"  Who forced you to leave COM and Windows, if that's what you
: > like?

: Read my sentence again.

In your previous post you said, regarding the new Java/Win32 bridge:

: IMO it's an excellent move, it's about time we got to use the stuff
: we've invested time and money in over the past 10 or so years -
: rather than being forced to use something immature, inadequate and
: inflexible.

By my reply I mean that no one was forcing you to give up Windows
programming.  I do Windows programming myself.  I use VC++ and I consider
that to be a very powerful tool.

I also said in my posting that I didn't mind Microsoft extending Java.  My
problem is with their increasing objection to platform independent Java.

: Win32 is far from immature - it's the most popular platform to date, and
: one of the most mature.  Considering the richness of services available on
: the Win32 platform (such as TAPI, DirectX, ActiveX, ODBC etc.) it's
: certainly adequate, and a COM solution makes it the most flexible in terms
: of extensibility.  

I never said you shouldn't use this stuff, if you like it.

: [...]

: > I'm down on Redmond because they now choose to fight platform independent
: > Java in the press.  They seem to accept Java's promise, but have chosen
: > to view that promise as a threat to Windows rather than an
: > opportunity.

: In terms of business position for Microsoft, of course it's a threat to
: their Windows platform. But if that was ALL it was, then I wouldn't be
: writing this message, and they wouldn't get very far with their marketing.

: It's a threat to the industry.  For the Internet, 100% Pure could be useful
: - if you want to please 100% of your audience 100% of the time.  When
: people mistake the Internet for the rest of the industry, that's when
: problems will occur. People get a fair deal for the hardware they're using,
: whatever that hardware is.  So why should they upgrade?

: [...]

The industry has changed a lot in the last twenty years.  Twenty years ago
there were almost no home computers.  Even ten years ago very few people
used on-line services, and they were the closest thing to being on the
net.  Now we have tens of millions of people on the net.  In some areas,
where cable modems are already installed, people are hooked from their
homes to the net 24 hours a day.

It's not surprising then that a language and architecture suited to this
kind of continuous interaction would arrive.  I don't see it as a threat
to the industry.

John

 
 
 

MICROSOFT ATTACKS PURE JAVA

Post by Erik Funkenbus » Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:00:00





>>If everyone implemented the J/Direct COM interfaces for different
>>processors (and wrapped other platforms in terms of the J/Direct COM
>>interfaces), then we can carry on with what we have, and yet still have the
>>potential for platform neutral applications:  

>Forget it that'll never happen after all it's not Microsofts intention
>to reach any cross platform capability in any way. They have a history
>of plugging non cross platform stuff into their API's (DCOM vs. Corba,
>OpenGL vs. D3D, Com vs. Corba and SOM, OLE vs. OpenDoc etc....)

Com was around long before SOM or CORBA.  MS supports OpenGL, and
OpenDoc Died before it was ever finished.

You're going to have to come up with better examples.

remove the _x at the end of my address to reply.