By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,543 Members | 2,085 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,543 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Is .Net really that important to MS as they touted ?

P: n/a
Microsoft has been pushing very hard behind .Net, but why haven't we seen any
real action or plan that Microsoft is going to port its own software,
especially Office onto .Net? If they don't want to do it, why should we go
with .Net?
Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
9 Replies


P: n/a
<=?Utf-8?B?dmluY2VudCB3YW5n?= <vincent
wa**@discussions.microsoft.com>> wrote:
Microsoft has been pushing very hard behind .Net, but why haven't we
seen any real action or plan that Microsoft is going to port its own
software, especially Office onto .Net? If they don't want to do it,
why should we go with .Net?


Porting huge existing products which really *have* to be backwardly
compatible isn't a particularly good idea, and I don't believe MS has
ever said it is.

However, there are MS products out and coming out which *do* use .NET
(to a greater or lesser extent), and Longhorn in particular will use it
extensively.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:

Porting huge existing products which really *have* to be backwardly
compatible isn't a particularly good idea, and I don't believe MS has
ever said it is.

However, there are MS products out and coming out which *do* use .NET
(to a greater or lesser extent), and Longhorn in particular will use it
extensively.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Developing *NEW* product is only a small part of the software industry,
upgrading takes the big share. According to what you said, only *NEW* product
will us .Net, that would be very disappointed to MS. And it’s also a little
bit funny that MS will run a non-.Net Office on .Net based Longhorn.
Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
Actually, Microsoft has a lot of plans for Office and just started hosting a
new conference for software developers using .NET with Office.

-
<%= Clinton Gallagher
METROmilwaukee "Regional Information Services"
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/

"Vincent Wang" <Vincent Wa**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9F**********************************@microsof t.com...
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:

Porting huge existing products which really *have* to be backwardly
compatible isn't a particularly good idea, and I don't believe MS has
ever said it is.

However, there are MS products out and coming out which *do* use .NET
(to a greater or lesser extent), and Longhorn in particular will use it
extensively.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Developing *NEW* product is only a small part of the software industry,
upgrading takes the big share. According to what you said, only *NEW*

product will us .Net, that would be very disappointed to MS. And it's also a little bit funny that MS will run a non-.Net Office on .Net based Longhorn.

Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
<=?Utf-8?B?VmluY2VudCBXYW5n?= <Vincent
Wa**@discussions.microsoft.com>> wrote:
Porting huge existing products which really *have* to be backwardly
compatible isn't a particularly good idea, and I don't believe MS has
ever said it is.

However, there are MS products out and coming out which *do* use .NET
(to a greater or lesser extent), and Longhorn in particular will use it
extensively.
Developing *NEW* product is only a small part of the software industry,
upgrading takes the big share.
I don't know how true that is - particularly if you consider internal
projects rather than just ones that are sold.
According to what you said, only *NEW* product
will us .Net, that would be very disappointed to MS.
The same is true for any development platform though. Unless you're
going for a rewrite anyway, why would you port hundreds of thousands of
lines of code?

For web applications it may be worth it, but for normal applications
it's usually not.
And it?s also a little
bit funny that MS will run a non-.Net Office on .Net based Longhorn.


Why? There will be various other non-.NET applications on Longhorn, I'm
sure.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
I am sure they have plans. Keep in mind that Office has evolved over the
past 15-20 years. There is probably much code that has existed since
day-one. With literally millions of lines of code, it would be foolish to
assume that such a product line would be ported overnight, after all, .NET
has only existed for a few years. Give them time.

Also, sometimes it may not be practical to rewrite an entire application
suite at once. Legacy system can be ported piecemeal.

Backward compatibility really does not have much to do with whether or not
Office is written in .NET. Office is no longer supported on anything prior
to Win2000 and so all machines hosting Office will be able to have the
framework available. Compatibility only relies on the file format, and the
language they choose is independent of the format.

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:#k**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Actually, Microsoft has a lot of plans for Office and just started hosting a new conference for software developers using .NET with Office.

-
<%= Clinton Gallagher
METROmilwaukee "Regional Information Services"
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/

"Vincent Wang" <Vincent Wa**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9F**********************************@microsof t.com...
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:

Porting huge existing products which really *have* to be backwardly
compatible isn't a particularly good idea, and I don't believe MS has
ever said it is.

However, there are MS products out and coming out which *do* use .NET
(to a greater or lesser extent), and Longhorn in particular will use it extensively.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Developing *NEW* product is only a small part of the software industry,
upgrading takes the big share. According to what you said, only *NEW*

product
will us .Net, that would be very disappointed to MS. And it's also a

little
bit funny that MS will run a non-.Net Office on .Net based Longhorn.


Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
Peter Rilling <pe***@nospam.rilling.net> wrote:
I am sure they have plans. Keep in mind that Office has evolved over the
past 15-20 years. There is probably much code that has existed since
day-one. With literally millions of lines of code, it would be foolish to
assume that such a product line would be ported overnight, after all, .NET
has only existed for a few years. Give them time.

Also, sometimes it may not be practical to rewrite an entire application
suite at once. Legacy system can be ported piecemeal.

Backward compatibility really does not have much to do with whether or not
Office is written in .NET. Office is no longer supported on anything prior
to Win2000 and so all machines hosting Office will be able to have the
framework available. Compatibility only relies on the file format, and the
language they choose is independent of the format.


Not in terms of add-ons. You've got all the VBA code to consider, along
with things which use the Office COM objects externally. MS wouldn't
want to ditch compatibility with that in a hurry, IMO.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
Did not think of those. That is what I get for such short-sight. :}
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Peter Rilling <pe***@nospam.rilling.net> wrote:
I am sure they have plans. Keep in mind that Office has evolved over the past 15-20 years. There is probably much code that has existed since
day-one. With literally millions of lines of code, it would be foolish to assume that such a product line would be ported overnight, after all, ..NET has only existed for a few years. Give them time.

Also, sometimes it may not be practical to rewrite an entire application
suite at once. Legacy system can be ported piecemeal.

Backward compatibility really does not have much to do with whether or not Office is written in .NET. Office is no longer supported on anything prior to Win2000 and so all machines hosting Office will be able to have the
framework available. Compatibility only relies on the file format, and the language they choose is independent of the format.


Not in terms of add-ons. You've got all the VBA code to consider, along
with things which use the Office COM objects externally. MS wouldn't
want to ditch compatibility with that in a hurry, IMO.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
Our biggest frustration has been the slow distribution of the .NET Framework
(DNF) itself.
Perhaps some of you have read "2004: A Microsoft Christmas Carol" that I
penned and posted to several newsgroups.

On the other hand, slow upgrades to Office Systems 2003 is said to be
affecting the revenues which has to be playing a role in the recent
attention being paid to Office. While we're frustrated with the slow time
schedule it also gives us more time to finish development of products and
services that we are integrating with Office products so its one of those
blessings is disguise situations. But to which end if there is no framework
on the number of desktops needed to become profitable selling applications
developed with the DNF?

Now when it comes to IE I am not so understanding as FireFox is a killer app
for browsing, especially for web developers.

--
<%= Clinton Gallagher
METROmilwaukee "Regional Information Services"
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/

"Peter Rilling" <pe***@nospam.rilling.net> wrote in message
news:ua*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Did not think of those. That is what I get for such short-sight. :}
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Peter Rilling <pe***@nospam.rilling.net> wrote:
I am sure they have plans. Keep in mind that Office has evolved over the past 15-20 years. There is probably much code that has existed since
day-one. With literally millions of lines of code, it would be foolish
to
assume that such a product line would be ported overnight, after all, .NET has only existed for a few years. Give them time.

Also, sometimes it may not be practical to rewrite an entire
application suite at once. Legacy system can be ported piecemeal.

Backward compatibility really does not have much to do with whether or
not Office is written in .NET. Office is no longer supported on anything prior to Win2000 and so all machines hosting Office will be able to have the
framework available. Compatibility only relies on the file format,
and the language they choose is independent of the format.


Not in terms of add-ons. You've got all the VBA code to consider, along
with things which use the Office COM objects externally. MS wouldn't
want to ditch compatibility with that in a hurry, IMO.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too


Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
When you concider apps like BizTalk server (over million lines of c# code)
and WebMatrix, you can see some direction there. I don't see the value in
porting existing c++ apps to .net unless you have a major rewrite or
something. Also, I don't believe they ever said all apps should be .net.
They will still support and build on native c++ long into the future I would
guess.

--
William Stacey, MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

"vincent wang" <vincent wa**@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF**********************************@microsof t.com...
Microsoft has been pushing very hard behind .Net, but why haven't we seen any real action or plan that Microsoft is going to port its own software,
especially Office onto .Net? If they don't want to do it, why should we go
with .Net?


Jul 21 '05 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.