By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
458,124 Members | 1,569 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 458,124 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Anybody notice that Microsoft doesn't write in .Net?

P: n/a
jim
Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.

If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
applications does Microsoft code in .Net?

I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the performance
sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's Plan Plus for
Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The UI performance
sucks.

I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net was
one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks like
will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows Me, Vista
or .Net.

Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are run
by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they just
lie about them.

jim
Sep 29 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:SB*******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.

If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
applications does Microsoft code in .Net?

I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's
Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The
UI performance sucks.

I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
Me, Vista or .Net.

Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
just lie about them.

jim
Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005, and
more in VS 2008.

Sep 29 '07 #2

P: n/a
On 29/09/2007 in message <uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gblCowboy
(Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications
It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications than
desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on that. I
wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming version?

--
Jeff Gaines
Sep 29 '07 #3

P: n/a
..NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications. There
are some .NET bits in SQL Server, which performs fine, however. You also see
some .NET in Office and a few other applications.

I am not sure about Symantec AV, Plan Plus or Neat Receipts. I have,
however, seen some very fine UIs written in .NET. I am also not sure what
version of windows you are looking at, how much memory, etc. Without having
specs, it is hard to blame .NET for the suckage.

Microsoft does have some bits in Vista that are .NET. They did back off the
"SQL Server as file system" push, at least for now, and you do not see a
major .NET UI piece.

It would seem like MS is not embracing .NET, but you have to remember most
of the programs that are on the market have been in multiple year cycles, so
your statements will be more fair in a year or two. If MS still does not
invest in .NET for their own product, the argument will bear more weight.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************************************************
| Think outside the box!
|
*************************************************
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:SB*******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.

If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
applications does Microsoft code in .Net?

I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's
Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The
UI performance sucks.

I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
Me, Vista or .Net.

Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
just lie about them.

jim

Sep 29 '07 #4

P: n/a

"Jeff Gaines" <wh*********@newsgroups.nospamwrote in message
news:xn***************@msnews.microsoft.com...
On 29/09/2007 in message <uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gblCowboy
(Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications

It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications than
desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on that. I
wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming version?
Many companies are using .Net solutions like .NET Service and Console
applications to do back-end processing. I have developed some of them
myself. I have also developed Web application as well. I have also developed
Windows desktop solutions that are using .Net remoting that are in
communications with a IIS Web server as an application gateway. More and
more solutions for .Net are coming to the Windows desktop, but I would say
that's mostly in a corporate or medium to small business environment.

Sep 29 '07 #5

P: n/a
jim
PvdG42 wrote:
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:SB*******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
>Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.

If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what
desktop applications does Microsoft code in .Net?

I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin
Covey's Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I
mean. The UI performance sucks.

I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it....
.Net was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and
looks like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that
Windows Me, Vista or .Net.

Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies
are run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make
them, they just lie about them.

jim

Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005,
and more in VS 2008.
Compared to VB6 and the pre-.Net Visual Studio, it's slow and clunky.

jim
Sep 30 '07 #6

P: n/a
jim
Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/09/2007 in message <uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gblCowboy
(Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications

It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming version?
That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being
to use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal
tools and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool set
that they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS and one
for real-world developers designing for the desktop.

Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about the
code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end users.

jim
Sep 30 '07 #7

P: n/a
jim
Mr. Arnold wrote:
>
"Jeff Gaines" <wh*********@newsgroups.nospamwrote in message
news:xn***************@msnews.microsoft.com...
>On 29/09/2007 in message <uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications

It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
version?

Many companies are using .Net solutions like .NET Service and Console
applications to do back-end processing. I have developed some of them
myself. I have also developed Web application as well. I have also
developed Windows desktop solutions that are using .Net remoting that
are in communications with a IIS Web server as an application gateway.
More and more solutions for .Net are coming to the Windows desktop, but
I would say that's mostly in a corporate or medium to small business
environment.
With all due respect Mr. Arnold, this is one of the problems.

What made Windows great was the ability of the goal oriented developers
(mostly hobbyist and part-time programmers) to develop "cool" and "must
have" applications for the OS. Corporate software is usually bloated
and lacking in features that end users (both novice and hard core) are
thirsting for.

Visual Basic *made* Windows. With .Net, Microsoft has abandoned g.o.d.
(goal oriented developers). And, one thing a successful OS or software
venture must never do is turn its back on g.o.d. like Microsoft did when
they killed VB6.

jim
Sep 30 '07 #8

P: n/a
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:yR******************@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
PvdG42 wrote:
>Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005,
and more in VS 2008.

Compared to VB6 and the pre-.Net Visual Studio, it's slow and clunky.

jim

So, you use Visual Studio? Exactly what kinds of applications do you
develop? As I use it daily and have not experienced the vague symptoms you
cite, I'm wondering if you actually use the product, or is this more of your
rumor mongering?

Sep 30 '07 #9

P: n/a

"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:NY******************@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
Mr. Arnold wrote:
>>
"Jeff Gaines" <wh*********@newsgroups.nospamwrote in message
news:xn***************@msnews.microsoft.com...
>>On 29/09/2007 in message <uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gblCowboy
(Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:

.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications

It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
version?

Many companies are using .Net solutions like .NET Service and Console
applications to do back-end processing. I have developed some of them
myself. I have also developed Web application as well. I have also
developed Windows desktop solutions that are using .Net remoting that are
in communications with a IIS Web server as an application gateway. More
and more solutions for .Net are coming to the Windows desktop, but I
would say that's mostly in a corporate or medium to small business
environment.

With all due respect Mr. Arnold, this is one of the problems.

What made Windows great was the ability of the goal oriented developers
(mostly hobbyist and part-time programmers) to develop "cool" and "must
have" applications for the OS. Corporate software is usually bloated and
lacking in features that end users (both novice and hard core) are
thirsting for.
Well, I have to assume that you have never faced a corporate end-user base
wanting speed in application execution or faced a manager needing speed of
execuition with said application developed. Man, I have been doing this for
20 some pluse years. And I started when Apple was in a wodden box.
>
Visual Basic *made* Windows. With .Net, Microsoft has abandoned g.o.d.
(goal oriented developers). And, one thing a successful OS or software
venture must never do is turn its back on g.o.d. like Microsoft did when
they killed VB6.

If you want speed of execution, then one uses VC++ 6 and not VB 6, which I
have had many years of writing VB 6 applications. Nothing against VB 6 as I
enjoyed working with the language for several years. The day I moved away
from VB 6 is the best thing I could have done. VB6 is dead and only exist
for existing legacy applications.

Sep 30 '07 #10

P: n/a

"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:0V******************@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
Jeff Gaines wrote:
>On 29/09/2007 in message <uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gblCowboy
(Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
>>.NET, overall, is more used by Microsoft on their web applications

It has always seemed to me that it is more suited to web applications
than desktop applications, although the name may have some bearing on
that. I wonder if desktop support will be beefed up in the coming
version?

That's been my theory all along...that Microsoft wrote .Net to further
their internal goals of software-as-a-service and just decided to drag
everyone else down that misguided path for 2 reasons. The first being to
use us all as the world's largest test base for their own internal tools
and the second being to cut costs by supporting only the tool set that
they wanted to use internally instead of one for their SAAS and one for
real-world developers designing for the desktop.

Rest assured its about raising profits for MS investors - not about the
code, not about the developers and certainly not about the end users.
You do know that MS doesn't own .Net? That's right MS gave it all away. The
reason .Net even exist is because of the fallout between Sun Micro Systems
and MS about the use of Java by MS. VB.Net is proprietary to MS.

Sep 30 '07 #11

P: n/a
jim
jim wrote:
What Microsoft actually submitted to the ECMA (along with help from
Borland, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, International
Business Machines, ISE, IT University Copenhagen, Microsoft Corporation,
Monash University, Netscape, Novell Corporation, OpenWave, Plum Hall,
Sun Microsystems, and the University of Canterbury New Zealand ) was
actually 2 items - the CLI specification
(http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-335.htm)
and the C# specification
(http://www.ecma-international.org/pu.../Ecma-335.htm).
My apologies.....the C# ECMA link should have read
http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-334.htm.

jim
Sep 30 '07 #12

P: n/a
jim

"PvdG42" <pv**@toadstool.eduwrote in message
news:eD**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:yR******************@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
>PvdG42 wrote:
>>Actually, newer parts of Visual Studio are written in .NET in VS 2005,
and more in VS 2008.

Compared to VB6 and the pre-.Net Visual Studio, it's slow and clunky.

jim


So, you use Visual Studio? Exactly what kinds of applications do you
develop? As I use it daily and have not experienced the vague symptoms you
cite, I'm wondering if you actually use the product, or is this more of
your rumor mongering?
I only write ASP.Net webpages for communications coorporations and internal
desktop apps as a frontend for our sales and management teams. Currently
using Visual Studio .Net 2005 Pro with SQL Server 2005 and Oracle back ends.

But, I could just be making that up too. So, how about we stick to what we
can both prove.....that .Net UIs are slower than pre-.Net UIs?

jim
Sep 30 '07 #13

P: n/a
Microsoft does use .NET a lot, but it can't migrate every application
entirely to .NET, not to mention there are still some programmers in
Microsoft who aren't trained to use .NET.

Microsoft.com, MSDN, Live.com, Channel 9 and a lot of other websites of
Microsoft use ASP.NET. SQL Server Management Studio, Sharepoint (fully
..NET), the SBS 2003 tools, the Windows Media Center plug-in applications,
the API of Windows XP Tablet PC - all these are developed using the .NET
Framework. But the majority of Microsoft software only partially uses the
..NET Framework (for the newer components usually.)

By the way, you should check channel9.msdn.com - there are a lot of
discussions on .NET with the MS employees.

Andrew,
Geekpedia.com

"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:SB*******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.

If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
applications does Microsoft code in .Net?

I think Microsoft avoids major desktop apps in .Net because the
performance sucks. Look at Symantec's antivirus apps and Franklin Covey's
Plan Plus for Windows and Neat Reciepts and you'll see what I mean. The
UI performance sucks.

I said it with the first release of .Net and I'm sticking to it.... .Net
was one of Microsoft's biggest mistakes, but they have never (and looks
like will never) admit to or back away from a mistake - be that Windows
Me, Vista or .Net.

Too bad. People know companies make mistakes - after all companies are
run by people. Companies that don't admit mistakes still make them, they
just lie about them.

jim
Sep 30 '07 #14

P: n/a
Jim,

As it is as you write, why are you telling this, do it better, however keep
your mouth until you have achieved that.

Cor

Sep 30 '07 #15

P: n/a
Hi Jim,
Here is my though:

If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.
Alberto

Sep 30 '07 #16

P: n/a
jim

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:6C**********************************@microsof t.com...
Jim,

As it is as you write, why are you telling this, do it better, however
keep your mouth until you have achieved that.

Cor
My friend Cor! I was wondering when you'd chime in with utter nonsense.

Thank you for being you. It is a nice break from logical discourse.

jim
Sep 30 '07 #17

P: n/a
jim

<in**@devdept.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
Hi Jim,
Here is my though:

If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.
Alberto
It certianly is much easier to write with the framework as much of the
coding has already been done for you. But, the UI still starts and runs
slower in the apps that I have written to mirror my C++ and VB6 apps on the
desktop.

..Net seems much more suited to web applications where desktop speed is not
required or expected.

jim
Sep 30 '07 #18

P: n/a

"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:Ov*****************@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
<in**@devdept.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>Hi Jim,
Here is my though:

If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.
Alberto

It certianly is much easier to write with the framework as much of the
coding has already been done for you. But, the UI still starts and runs
slower in the apps that I have written to mirror my C++ and VB6 apps on
the desktop.

.Net seems much more suited to web applications where desktop speed is not
required or expected.
Are you aware of any of the infoemtion in the links?

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998547.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/is...t/default.aspx
Oct 1 '07 #19

P: n/a
Wonderful articles Mr.Arnold, I will read them immediately. Thank you.

Oct 1 '07 #20

P: n/a
On 29 Set, 20:54, "jim" <j...@home.netwrote:
"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arn...@Arnold.comwrote in messagenews:u9**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl. ..


"jim" <j...@home.netwrote in message
news:SB*******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
But other software vendors are devloping solutions in .Net for Vista.
http://www.bestvistadownloads.com/
If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what desktop
applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
Why should MS develop existing applications it has in .NET? You know the
old saying, if its not broke, then you don't fix it. And anyone would be a
fool to be converting existing code, if it's not need and has no Return On
Investment or ROI.

I agree. No need to rewrite apps just to rewrite them. But what about new
desktop apps for Windows? Can you name *any* applictions that do
significant work (i.e. that are data or process intensive) that use .Net -
even better one that's written by Microsoft? Can you name any that perform
as quickly or as stable as their C++\VB6 predecessors?
Yes, check this one and try to do it in VB6 ! :-)

http://www.datatime.eu/download.aspx
DataTime Reporting Solution

-P

Oct 1 '07 #21

P: n/a

<in**@devdept.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@22g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com...
Wonderful articles Mr.Arnold, I will read them immediately. Thank you.
Here is another link that you may find interesting.

MODEL-VIEW-PRESENTER
http://www.polymorphicpodcast.com/

click 'Shows'

click 'Design Patterns Bootcamp: Model View * Patterns'

view part 1-5

Oct 1 '07 #22

P: n/a

"pamela fluente" <pa***********@libero.itwrote in message
news:11**********************@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
On 29 Set, 20:54, "jim" <j...@home.netwrote:
>"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arn...@Arnold.comwrote in
messagenews:u9**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl ...


"jim" <j...@home.netwrote in message
news:SB*******************@bignews4.bellsouth.net ...
Look at Microsoft and Windows apps in Vista.... They aren't .Net.
But other software vendors are devloping solutions in .Net for Vista.
>http://www.bestvistadownloads.com/
>If .Net is so great, why doesn't MS use it more? In fact, what
desktop
applications does Microsoft code in .Net?
Why should MS develop existing applications it has in .NET? You know
the
old saying, if its not broke, then you don't fix it. And anyone would
be a
fool to be converting existing code, if it's not need and has no Return
On
Investment or ROI.

I agree. No need to rewrite apps just to rewrite them. But what about
new
desktop apps for Windows? Can you name *any* applictions that do
significant work (i.e. that are data or process intensive) that use
.Net -
even better one that's written by Microsoft? Can you name any that
perform
as quickly or as stable as their C++\VB6 predecessors?
You do know that there is C++ in NET that can use the .Net Framework/Managed
code or not use the .NetFramewotk period/Unmanaged Code? If you want speed
for a process intensive application, one is going to use C++ .NET
Unmanaged. Life INSURANCE Actuary application written by an Actuary
application programmer is using C++ .Net Unmanaged I suspect to crunch the
numbers, if .NET is the directive in the company..

Do you honestly think that MS is the only one that's producing applications
that are process intensive that need speed that are using .Net?

And about VB6, which I have nothing against VB6 becase I used it for some
years professionally, VB6 is dead for new projects/applications in today's
environment. If there is any work out there for VB6, it's maintenance only
for existing legacy applications, and they are not paying well for old dead
technology experience.

You got to know when to hold the cards in the hand or fold the cards in the
hand you're playing. ;-)


Oct 1 '07 #23

P: n/a
There are areas where .NET beats both, more so with VB6 than C++, but COM is
fairly well embedded into Windows and C++ allows you to write using a native
approach.

But, speed is not everything. There are certainly cases where perf is the
number one issue, but not always.

I have not spent a huge amount of time in Windows UIs, so .NET may very well
suck there. At a previous assignment, we wrote an ETL program that ripped
through GBs of data per day, which smoked the old Oracle stored procedure
method. I did not test against C or C++, however.

Part of getting perf out of .NET is learning to get a bit deeper into the
bowels of .NET. It can also help to stick in the binary world as much as
possible, rather than the Unicode string world, where so much of .NET
sticks. You also have to really watch how you are setting up strings, as
..NET is not very forgiving if you get into concatenation, even cases where
you are concatenating in the Append method of a StringBuilder.

None of what I am talking about is UI. Perhaps poking farther into GDI+ will
help in this respect.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

*************************************************
| Think outside the box!
|
*************************************************
"jim" <ji*@home.netwrote in message
news:Ov*****************@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
<in**@devdept.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>Hi Jim,
Here is my though:

If you work all day as a developer you'll find your .NET applications
more easy to write and more robust. Yes, some time you need to spend
some time to make your code faster but believe me the final result is
not so slower than C++ and it is *for sure* more robust.
Alberto

It certianly is much easier to write with the framework as much of the
coding has already been done for you. But, the UI still starts and runs
slower in the apps that I have written to mirror my C++ and VB6 apps on
the desktop.

.Net seems much more suited to web applications where desktop speed is not
required or expected.

jim

Oct 2 '07 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.