Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Oct 2010 20:48 UTC
Microsoft Most websites glossed over this, but we didn't. Silverlight, once touted as Microsoft's answer to Adobe's Flash, has been retooled from its original purpose. Microsoft is betting big on HTML5 instead, turning Silverlight into the development platform for Windows Phone, and that's it. So... Silverlight is dead - long live Silerlight?
Order by: Score:
What does this mean
by viator on Fri 29th Oct 2010 21:02 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

Does this mean that in the near future we wont have to use silverlight for netflix on mac or windows? And maybe just maybe it will finally work on linux??

Reply Score: 2

RE: What does this mean
by siimo on Fri 29th Oct 2010 21:09 UTC in reply to "What does this mean"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

Nope. HTML5 has no support for DRM. This is the reason YouTube mentioned that Flash is here to stay. The rented content on YouTube is delivered through Flash.

It is unlikely that Netflix will use HTML5 video in its current state, so they will probably continue with Silverlight.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: What does this mean
by RichterKuato on Fri 29th Oct 2010 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE: What does this mean"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

I think he was asking if Netflix will abandon Silverlight/PlayReady, and use something that has proper Linux support, like Flash, which Hulu uses.

He never mentioned the video element or HTML5 support. It's funny how you could miss that considering it was only two sentences.

Edited 2010-10-29 21:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What does this mean
by Nelson on Fri 29th Oct 2010 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What does this mean"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, of course he was talking about flash in an article about Silverlight and HTML5. Lol.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What does this mean
by RichterKuato on Fri 29th Oct 2010 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What does this mean"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

The article was about Microsoft abandoning Silverlight as a cross-media runtime (which the Flash Player is).

Reply Score: 2

RE: What does this mean
by sukru on Fri 29th Oct 2010 22:19 UTC in reply to "What does this mean"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Until Flash reaches the performance of Silverlight in video playback, I don't think it would happen.

Yes it's not really cross platform (Moonlight is halfway there), and not gained very high traction, however there are quite a few areas where Silverlight is ahead of competition. One is multimedia, the second one is language support (C#, VB, F#, Python, Ruby, JS, and more), and of course another one is performance - the code is JIT'd most of the time.

So it won't be the flash replacement, but will probably stay in its (small) market for a while.

Reply Score: 4

Good news for HTML5 ...
by WorknMan on Fri 29th Oct 2010 21:16 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

But I suppose it's bad news for Silverlight devs, unless they're coding for Windows Phone. Is it just me, or does Microsoft have a habit of changing their minds about which of their technologies that devs should be using. Whatever happened to the .NET compact framework?

And getting slightly off-topic, how is WPF coming along? I mean, is it really taking off? I can't recall sampling any apps that use it, unless they're so close to the native Win32 look & feel that I didn't recognize it. I heard they retooled the code editor in VS 2010 to use it, but besides that?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good news for HTML5 ...
by Nelson on Fri 29th Oct 2010 21:39 UTC in reply to "Good news for HTML5 ..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

This has been the trend Silverlight has been going in for a while. Moving from a web based flash competitor, to a client side technology. It's going to converge with WPF and become the One UI Toolkit To Rule Them All.

I don't know of anyone who still uses Silverlight for pure web content in Microsoft shops, at work we do all our work Out of Browser. It's a cross platform CLR.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by poundsmack on Fri 29th Oct 2010 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for HTML5 ..."
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

"This has been the trend Silverlight has been going in for a while. Moving from a web based flash competitor, to a client side technology. It's going to converge with WPF and become the One UI Toolkit To Rule Them All."

that's been the plan since before 2.0 was released. after version 1 and around the time 2 was about to be deployed to the world Microsoft realized that Silverlight could be better poised than a flash competitor and quite frankly silverlight is wonderful to work with. i look forward to it's further integration into windows and windows CE

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by StaubSaugerNZ on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for HTML5 ..."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

So it's just like a Java applet is what you are saying? Strange how similar ideas/solutions come around from time to time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good news for HTML5 ...
by nt_jerkface on Fri 29th Oct 2010 23:06 UTC in reply to "Good news for HTML5 ..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Is it just me, or does Microsoft have a habit of changing their minds about which of their technologies that devs should be using.

Meh, Nokia and Novell have done same thing numerous times.


Whatever happened to the .NET compact framework?

It's been dumped for Silverlight lol. I think it was mostly used by CE devs who they want to move to WP7. There is also .net micro.

Like ASP AJAX it probably didn't gain enough of a following to encourage further development.


And getting slightly off-topic, how is WPF coming along? I mean, is it really taking off? I can't recall sampling any apps that use it, unless they're so close to the native Win32 look & feel that I didn't recognize it.


It's a two-fold problem of XP users having a large presence and most applications being started before WPF. A lot of the big Windows programs were started in C++ before .NET existed and would be very expensive to convert to WPF. For a program like winzip it wouldn't matter but itunes would look great in a wpf rewrite.

The decision to use WPF often looks like this:
1. Build a great looking program for Win7/Vista users, but then tweak it so it looks average in XP.
2. Build an average looking program that doesn't need to be tweaked for XP and also doesn't require a newer .net pack.

So if you want to see more #1 then get people off XP. Mono also encourages #2 since it doesn't use WPF.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by Nelson on Sat 30th Oct 2010 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for HTML5 ..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Whatever happened to the .NET compact framework?


Silverlight on WP7 uses the .NET Compact Framework. So it's still alive.

Desktop SL uses full .NET Framework, minus a lot of class libraries.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by google_ninja on Sat 30th Oct 2010 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for HTML5 ..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

the performance is pretty ass too. I wrote a fairly simple app awhile back, and the ui was rather sluggish when it came to dynamically updating it, and I was on a quad core with 8 gigs of ram. It also had a really long start time, noticably longer then winforms. Finally, it was virtually unusable over terminal services.

It is a really cool idea, but I wouldn't do anything serious in it for another few years when either it gets more mature, or average hardware outpaces it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by vivainio on Sat 30th Oct 2010 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

the performance is pretty ass too. I wrote a fairly simple app awhile back, and the ui was rather sluggish when it came to dynamically updating it, and I was on a quad core with 8 gigs of ram.


I'd chalk this as a failed experiment (broken test case?) - I imagine WPF should be pretty fast, since SL gets 60fps on WP7 .

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by lucas_maximus on Sun 31st Oct 2010 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

WPF performance can be terrible on older version of Windows i.e. older than Windows 7.

In XP I had dog slow performance with VS 2010 (which is in WPF), I researched the problem and came across the solution ... these APIs can be installed on VISTA and XP. Once these were install performance was as comparable as 2005 and 2008.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good news for HTML5 ...
by ephracis on Fri 29th Oct 2010 23:36 UTC in reply to "Good news for HTML5 ..."
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

And getting slightly off-topic, how is WPF coming along? I mean, is it really taking off? I can't recall sampling any apps that use it, unless they're so close to the native Win32 look & feel that I didn't recognize it. I heard they retooled the code editor in VS 2010 to use it, but besides that?

Yeah, VS2010 is WPF.
In my hobby project I use WPF. I know, it's not a big project but you can see for yourself that it looks very native: http://code.google.com/p/yet-another-music-application/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by WorknMan on Sat 30th Oct 2010 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for HTML5 ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

How hard is it to create WPF apps... I mean, the ones that look native? Do you have to be a web/graphics designer to make them look decent, or do they have a 'generic' mode where you can just layout the controls like windows forms?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by Nelson on Sat 30th Oct 2010 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

WPF apps have default templating to match OS look and feel. You can even switch resources and use the XP look and feel on Vista/7, or the Vista/7 look and feel on XP or vice versa.

WPF is a complex beast, with 10 ways to do the same thing, but it's the most powerful framework I've ever used.

Silverlight is WPF's less complex distant relative, instead of 10 ways to do something, there's 2-3.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by ephracis on Sat 30th Oct 2010 04:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

It's pretty easy. Most of my design I do in XAML which is very efficient. But sometimes I need to handle the controls in code which works just as you would expect if you are used to WinForms. You can actually access WinForms from within WPF application _exactly_ as you do in your normal WinForms app. Just be careful what namespaces you include so you don't confuse your compiler. ;)

One thing I love is the ease of modifying controls. You can put a style on it, or completely remake a control just by using templates. This is how I made those playback buttons which were supposed to look somewhat like the buttons in Windows Explorer (in fact I have tried to mimic Explorer pretty much). However, when it's easy to style your app, some people/corporations will abuse that ability and create computer-vomit, but that's life. ;)

I used Glade before when doing GTK+ apps, which I enjoyed, so WPF with XAML felt natural for me.

However, I love the Qt toolkit and how easy and powerful it is. When I port my app to Linux I hope to be able to do a Qt and a GTK+ version (because integration is extremely important IMO), so I hope that WPF can give me that separation that I need as well.



Oops! This seems to have gotten out of hand. I should've stayed on topic... *flees*

Edited 2010-10-30 04:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by vivainio on Sat 30th Oct 2010 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


However, I love the Qt toolkit and how easy and powerful it is. When I port my app to Linux I hope to be able to do a Qt and a GTK+ version (because integration is extremely important IMO)


You will feel pretty stupid after doing both Qt and Gtk uis and seeing that they are identical under Gtk theme.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by ephracis on Sat 30th Oct 2010 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

So what you are saying is that there is absolutely no reason to do GTK+? Remember that there's not only looks, but also feel. I believe that there's a need to actually create two versions, since KDE and Gnome are very different in that regard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by vivainio on Sat 30th Oct 2010 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

So what you are saying is that there is absolutely no reason to do GTK+?


Right, unless you absolutely want to use C instead of C++.

Remember that there's not only looks, but also feel.


Gtk has no different look or "feel" (whatever that means) from Qt when running under Gnome.


I believe that there's a need to actually create two versions, since KDE and Gnome are very different in that regard.


Really, they are not. If you find a difference it Qt app look and/or behavior compared to Gtk app, you should file a bug in QGtkStyle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by _txf_ on Sat 30th Oct 2010 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


Right, unless you absolutely want to use C instead of C++.


Can always use mm bindings for gtk (everyone says that they are "better" than pure gtk anyway). Not that I'm defending the need to do a gtk version. Seems superfluous.

Edited 2010-10-30 16:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good news for HTML5 ...
by ephracis on Sat 30th Oct 2010 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good news for HTML5 ..."
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

Right, unless you absolutely want to use C instead of C++.

Yeah, but what about C#? I know Gtk has Mono and Gtk# but what's the status of QtSharp or Qyoto/Kimono? How are they coming along?

Anyway, I won't get doing the Linux version this year so I'll wait and see what approach I will take. But if Qt can give me what I need then maybe I will use only that. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good news for HTML5 ...
by renzska on Mon 1st Nov 2010 16:32 UTC in reply to "Good news for HTML5 ..."
renzska Member since:
2010-11-01

I developed both http://www.muvaudio.com/ and http://www.muvunder.com/ in WPF. WPF definitely has a learning curve but it allows for some amazing things. Think of it as being similar to the the switch from MFC to Windows Forms.

Also, Blu, another twitter client, was created in WPF.

Developers are learning. Traction is building. Just give it time. HTML5 will be the same. It's hard to put a lot of effort into learning a new technology until you feel like it's where it needs to be and won't just disappear.

Reply Score: 1

Mac Silverlight works well.
by MollyC on Fri 29th Oct 2010 23:28 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

What's with the "Mac version didn't really go down well" FUD? Seems like a line you threw in just for the hell of it.

As for HTML5 being the future of all app development, I have to thank my lucky stars that I retired from professional programming a few years back.

Edited 2010-10-29 23:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Mac Silverlight works well.
by Nelson on Sat 30th Oct 2010 04:36 UTC in reply to "Mac Silverlight works well."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, as someone who routinely needs to make sure Mac perf is the same as PC perf, I'll just say it right now that the job is made really easy. Performance is nearly identical.

It wasn't always, but Silverlight 4 has really made it truely cross platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mac Silverlight works well.
by vivainio on Sat 30th Oct 2010 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac Silverlight works well."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Yeah, as someone who routinely needs to make sure Mac perf is the same as PC perf, I'll just say it right now that the job is made really easy. Performance is nearly identical.


Back in my day, the target was to make performance as good as possible, not identical to some other platform.

That being said - I guessed the threat of SL was over after Apple refused to have flash for iOS. It did very little for Flash, but it finally sealed the fate for SL (if even Flash is not ubiquitous, what chance does SL have?)

Reply Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Back in my day, the target was to make performance as good as possible, not identical to some other platform.


Identical performance, providing a consistent experience is arguably more important. With that said though, we achieved over 60fps in all scenarios.

Reply Score: 2

Umm...grand celebration plz?
by earksiinni on Fri 29th Oct 2010 23:47 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

Hey, can someone fill me in as to why this isn't being marked as a landmark change? I don't mean that in a snide way, I'm genuinely wondering why the reaction seems to be muted, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. Or why people are considering Silverlight seriously...?

I mean...Microsoft so openly touting an open web standard?? Congratulations, I say! A sure sign that they're worried, despite their recent quarterly statement.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Umm...grand celebration plz?
by Nelson on Sat 30th Oct 2010 04:34 UTC in reply to "Umm...grand celebration plz?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Because anyone who knows anything about web dev, knows this isn't a big deal. Silverlight's huge presence outside of Netflix, is in Out of Browser apps, or WP7 apps.

And lol, Microsoft will use HTML5 alright, to push more Windows lock in. It's interesting you shun the .NET Developer divisions in Windows (which are more open to standards and interoperability, look at WCF, ADFS, Silverlight for Mac and Symbian) for the Windows division (with notorious history of lock in, who are all salivating to get your HTML5 web app to run better on Windows, faster on Windows, and eventually, only on Windows.)

There are two cultures inside Microsoft, and you're about to be reintroduced to the one you thought Silverlight masqueraded as for so long.

Good luck.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Umm...grand celebration plz?
by lemur2 on Sat 30th Oct 2010 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Umm...grand celebration plz?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Because anyone who knows anything about web dev, knows this isn't a big deal. Silverlight's huge presence outside of Netflix, is in Out of Browser apps, or WP7 apps.

And lol, Microsoft will use HTML5 alright, to push more Windows lock in. It's interesting you shun the .NET Developer divisions in Windows (which are more open to standards and interoperability, look at WCF, ADFS, Silverlight for Mac and Symbian) for the Windows division (with notorious history of lock in, who are all salivating to get your HTML5 web app to run better on Windows, faster on Windows, and eventually, only on Windows.)

There are two cultures inside Microsoft, and you're about to be reintroduced to the one you thought Silverlight masqueraded as for so long.

Good luck.


No, appearances would have it that Silverlight was just as much an attempt to gain lock-in to Microsoft products (so that users had to run Windows in order to be able to access the Internet) as any other ploy Microsoft has used.

Perhaps this article might help to explain the acute image problem that Microsoft now has:
http://www.acrossad.org/node/70

Microsoft's behaviour is arguably driving whole countries to adopt the very platform that Microsoft are trying to suppress. Microsoft has a long history of this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/ballmer_linux_lawsuits/

Perhaps dropping Silverlight and adopting HTML5 is the first tentative move on Microsoft's part to try to repair this disastrous PR image problem they have generated for themselves.

Who knows? If it is, only good things can come of it.

Edited 2010-10-30 12:20 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


No, appearances would have it that Silverlight was just as much an attempt to gain lock-in to Microsoft products (so that users had to run Windows in order to be able to access the Internet) as any other ploy Microsoft has used.


Prove it.

Reply Score: 3

mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

"
No, appearances would have it that Silverlight was just as much an attempt to gain lock-in to Microsoft products (so that users had to run Windows in order to be able to access the Internet) as any other ploy Microsoft has used.


Prove it.
"

Silverlight is not available on Linux, and is a second class citizen anywhere other than on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

It works rather well on Macs, in the Browser and outside it.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"[q]
No, appearances would have it that Silverlight was just as much an attempt to gain lock-in to Microsoft products (so that users had to run Windows in order to be able to access the Internet) as any other ploy Microsoft has used.


Prove it.
"

Silverlight is not available on Linux, and is a second class citizen anywhere other than on Windows. [/q]

Yes but tbh ... I don't bother writing stuff for a platform that isn't going to represent less than 5% of the market.

e.g. We have a second mobile website which is going to be deployed sometime at the end of the this month. We need to redirect visitors who are on a mobile to the mobile website. We could have used http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ this to do the redirect, however we have a CMS from 2001 that is very fragile if the ISAPI rules are changed (i.e. it falls over).

The other route was a JS redirect when the page loaded, by looking at the user agent (a dirty hack I know, but the current website is going to be around for another few months and we are migrating to a newer CMS, this will make do in the meantime).

Obviously phones that had browsers that did not support JS would not be redirected ... when I warned my manager of this, he told me not to worry because we don't have any visitors using a handset that doesn't have a JS capable browser i.e. iPhone, Android handsets and modern Blackberrys.

The same I expect happens at microsoft, why would they bother supporting a platform that has such a small % of the market? They cannot justify the use of resources.

I do agree though that if they are going to support MacOSX they should make sure that it is of acceptable quality.

Edited 2010-10-31 11:45 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Silverlight is not available on Linux, and is a second class citizen anywhere other than on Windows.


Silverlight for Linux is Moonlight. Officially. Microsoft officially sanctioned the port and gives them interoperability tests and ahead of time information on some subjects.

Silverlight for OSX works just as well as the Windows version. I don't get the "second class citizen" bullshit, stop making shit up.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" No, appearances would have it that Silverlight was just as much an attempt to gain lock-in to Microsoft products (so that users had to run Windows in order to be able to access the Internet) as any other ploy Microsoft has used.


Prove it.
"

Silverlight is not available on Linux. (Moonlight is available, but it is barely useable and even then only for x86 and x86_64, and only after downloading binary-blob codecs from Microsoft).

Silverlight is not available for a whole host of web-connected devices and platforms:
- ARM
- Android
- Symbian
- Palm
- Blackberry
- PPC

... to mention only a few.

This is a sizeable percentage of machines that can otherwise fully participate in the open web.

QED.

Edited 2010-10-31 11:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Wrong.

It is available for symbian. But while you're at it why not add QNX,BeOS, OS/2.

Just because it was unavailable on certain platforms does not invalidate its (ex-) stated mission to be cross platform. Maybe if the strategy had not changed it would eventually get to those platforms.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Wrong.

It is available for symbian. But while you're at it why not add QNX,BeOS, OS/2.

Just because it was unavailable on certain platforms does not invalidate its (ex-) stated mission to be cross platform. Maybe if the strategy had not changed it would eventually get to those platforms.


It is not nearly cross-platform enough, that is the problem.

Also, it is a proprietary technology, which makes it totally unsuitable for use as a web standard.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

Why write a web technology that can't be used on the web by a hefty percentage of web-connected devices, such as some phones, tablets, smartbooks and netbooks, and even some desktops?

BTW - being a "standard" hasn't anything to do with the bare number of devices that can or cannot use it. A "standard" is meant to enable interoperability across the board for any device from any manufacturer.

Standards are about wide interoperability, not popularity.

"Windows + Mac" just doesn't cut it. Not by a loooooooonnnng shot.

Reply Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I doubt that microsoft ever intended to make it a standard. It was always going to be a runtime embedded on a page. If people wanted something more advanced for things like live streaming etc they could use SL. Additions of other platforms would then come as demanded.

If they wanted interoperability with all pcs then they would go someplace else. Either way looking at the development of SL since 2.0 it appears that the narrowed focus has been in effect for a long time.

Edited 2010-10-31 12:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Silverlight is not meant to mesh with the web, hence why they made it a browser plugin instead of building it directly into IE. Silverlight is meant to supplement the web in scenarios, but overall, it's meant to serve as a launchpad to an Out of Browser application.

However, to someone like you who has never used Silverlight, beyond your misconception, all ability to communicate and reason is lost.

Reply Score: 4

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Silverlight is not available on Linux. (Moonlight is available, but it is barely useable and even then only for x86 and x86_64, and only after downloading binary-blob codecs from Microsoft).


You see, this is where your misconception begins. Silverlight is not only a streaming technology. That's maybe 1% of what Silverlight is. Silverlight is a cross platform CLR capable of running under full trust on 3 different platforms. Moonlight does this nearly perfectly. It's a work in progress, but it's getting there.

You're delusional if you think HTML5 is implemented the same, even across Gecko or WebKit, so the point is largely moot.


Silverlight is not available for a whole host of web-connected devices and platforms:
- ARM
- Android
- Symbian
- Palm
- Blackberry
- PPC

... to mention only a few.


Silverlight runs on ARM (Symbian and Windows Phone 7)
Also, why are you mixing manufacturers with architectures?

You might as well say Silverlight isn't available on the following platforms:

- Windows
- Linux
- Hamburger
- Potato
- iPhone

See how long and important my list is? I must be right. You're not honest at all, please be honest.


This is a sizeable percentage of machines that can otherwise fully participate in the open web.


A lack of reach is not vendor lock in, it just means they don't have infinite resources ..

You didn't prove anything, you just further cemented my belief that you know approximately nothing. You continue to disappoint.

Reply Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Also I don't think there is anybody stopping one from adding Moonlight to Android.

Reply Score: 3

Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

moonlight doesn't work

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Also I don't think there is anybody stopping one from adding Moonlight to Android.


The codecs required to get Moonlight to work with proprietary formats, such as MP3, VC1 and H.264, are only available from Microsoft as binary blobs. x86 or x86_64 binary blobs. AFAIK one must have a SLED license in order to obtain those codec binary blobs.

What exactly would be the point of proting Moonlight to Android, since the majority of Android installations run on ARM?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Umm...grand celebration plz?
by _txf_ on Sat 30th Oct 2010 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Umm...grand celebration plz?"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Indeed

As an inheritor to a large SL project, I did not get the choice of framework to use. But learning and using SL has been a blast.

There are some really nice ways that one can abstract the ui from the app logic, and the framework is really easy to learn.

Also there is some really good documentation and examples both from inside ms and outside.

And it goes without saying that being able to use one language (c#) for the backend all the way to the UI is much better than dealing with the mishmash of paradigms and languages that come with other forms of web development.

Reply Score: 2

If Only
by LeeZH on Sat 30th Oct 2010 01:19 UTC
LeeZH
Member since:
2010-10-21

It's quite interesting to see that the big companies finally see the HTML5 standards as the way to go for most web experience. If only Microsoft would extend this type of idea for everything else (eg .docx). If only. *sigh*

Reply Score: 2

RE: If Only
by Kroc on Sat 30th Oct 2010 09:59 UTC in reply to "If Only"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

In Microsoft’s defence, when you run Office 2010 for the first time it asks you if you want to use ODF or DOCX formats.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: If Only
by Neolander on Sat 30th Oct 2010 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE: If Only"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

In Microsoft’s defence, when you run Office 2010 for the first time it asks you if you want to use ODF or DOCX formats.

And what if you want to use DOC 2000/XP in order to be compatible with what most people use ? I mean... Last time I checked, OO compatibility with docx was poor and office compatibility with ODF was awful. Doc is just the universal format of today when you don't have high demands and can't send read-only files (otherwise, PDF is the way to go anyway =))

Edited 2010-10-30 12:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: If Only
by lemur2 on Sat 30th Oct 2010 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If Only"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Last time I checked, OO compatibility with docx was poor and office compatibility with ODF was awful.


If one was going to use "poor" to describe OO compatibility with docx (which is possibly fair enough), then one needs a many-times-over stronger word than "awful" to describe MS Office compatibility with ODF.

If two users, one with OpenOffice and the other with MS Office, are exchanging files, then the user with OpenOffice is the one who is going to have a lot less trouble of the two.

Edited 2010-10-30 13:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: If Only
by MollyC on Mon 1st Nov 2010 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If Only"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I don't have Word 2010, but Word 2007 allows the user to set an option indicating what the default "Save" format should be. Including the old .doc format. As well as .rtf, .odt, .docx, .html, .mhtml, .txt, .xml, etc...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: If Only
by lemur2 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If Only"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I don't have Word 2010, but Word 2007 allows the user to set an option indicating what the default "Save" format should be. Including the old .doc format. As well as .rtf, .odt, .docx, .html, .mhtml, .txt, .xml, etc...


It is just a pity that the Word 2007 .odt format doesn't work with anything but Word. Strangely enough, every other implementation of .odt on the planet is far more interoperable.

In a similar-in-some-ways but different fashion, the Word 2007 .docx format is not OOXML.

Amazing consistency, really. Kind of an anything-but-a-standard approach to non-interoperability. Also a kind of see-if-we-can-get-odt-to-be-seen-as-not-interoperable sabotage. Microsoft do it well.

Reply Score: 2

Moonlight
by vivainio on Sat 30th Oct 2010 11:31 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

It is interesting to see what's going to happen with Moonlight now. At least it doesn't seem as urgent now that SL as web plugin ends up being less of a requirement than anticipated at the time that project was founded...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Moonlight
by lemur2 on Sat 30th Oct 2010 12:04 UTC in reply to "Moonlight"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It is interesting to see what's going to happen with Moonlight now. At least it doesn't seem as urgent now that SL as web plugin ends up being less of a requirement than anticipated at the time that project was founded...


If Moonlight isn't a "requirement" (it never was, BTW), then what of Mono?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Moonlight
by vivainio on Sat 30th Oct 2010 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Moonlight"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


If Moonlight isn't a "requirement" (it never was, BTW), then what of Mono?


Mono has entirely different dynamics from Moonlight. While ML was more of a "browser plugin" / utility thing, Mono is a development environment. Haskell or Common Lisp are not "required" either, but they have a reason to be available because some people like to code using them - and one thing Open Source should endorse is people's freedom to write code in whatever environment works for them.

I bet most of us agree that Mono should not be a critical part of the free desktop infrastructure (due to the close MS ties), but if it gives us a few cool apps - why not have it around, net benefit is bigger than the small risk it bears.

Edited 2010-10-30 18:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Moonlight
by contextfree on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 20:32 UTC in reply to "Moonlight"
contextfree Member since:
2009-06-01

It's still a more advanced desktop UI framework than just about anything else, which was what Miguel was primarily interested in to begin with. He even had it working out-of-browser on Linux before Microsoft added the feature to their own Silverlight.

Reply Score: 1

Sad to move on
by pel! on Sat 30th Oct 2010 11:46 UTC
pel!
Member since:
2005-07-07

One one hand I'm really happy that this will FINALLY put an end to the moonlight bashing. On the other hand I'm a bit sad that this will forever make this great platform a niche product.

Although I have some understanding for the "open source" fanboys (most of them seem to be non developers) outright hatred against anything .net I /really/ like the architecture of the silverlight platform. I guess it's time to move on.

Reply Score: 1

If I had to choose...
by NeoX on Sun 31st Oct 2010 03:20 UTC
NeoX
Member since:
2006-02-19

Honestly Silverlight is not that bad, even on a Mac. If I had to choose between flash or silverlight, flash would hit the dumpster. I hate watching videos in flash on my MacBook as it uses so much CPU that the fans kick on and it sounds like my MacBook is going to fly off my desk. OK that is an exaggeration, it's not that loud, certainly not HP laptop loud! But still it shouldn't be that way if flash was more efficient and not such a dog.

Silverlight, on the other hand, does not cause my fans to blast up to full. I watched an hour or so of MSDN video in silverlight the other night and it was fine, no airplane on my desk! :-D

Of course, I suppose neither one would be a better choice, but unfortunately that means you don't get a lot of content on the web. So for now it is life.

Reply Score: 1

RE: If I had to choose...
by vivainio on Sun 31st Oct 2010 06:07 UTC in reply to "If I had to choose..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I hate watching videos in flash on my MacBook as it uses so much CPU that the fans kick on and it sounds like my MacBook is going to fly off my desk.


Anecdotal evidence (i.e. I heard it on "Linux Action Show" podcast) suggests that the Flash 10 betas for Linux use hardly any CPU when watching video. Same will probably apply for macs.

Edited 2010-10-31 06:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: If I had to choose...
by Neolander on Sun 31st Oct 2010 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE: If I had to choose..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

If I remember well, on my Athlon 3000+/1GB RAM/7800GT config, it was a bit heavy for video playback but still acceptable (~20-30% CPU on Ubuntu 9.04 vs 60+% on older releases).

On Mac, I heard that there were some major improvements for some Mac hardware using the "Gala" beta, too.

Edited 2010-10-31 09:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: If I had to choose...
by _txf_ on Sun 31st Oct 2010 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If I had to choose..."
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Major, but still not good.

On the smallest youtube video I get 30% cpu usage. On 720p it climbs up to 50%. This is all with the latest beta flash for mac.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: If I had to choose...
by Nelson on Sun 31st Oct 2010 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If I had to choose..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Exactly. Silverlight absolutely crushes Flash when it comes to performance on OSX. It's not a competition.

Reply Score: 2

Netflix and Silverlight
by dukes on Sun 31st Oct 2010 14:34 UTC
dukes
Member since:
2005-07-06

If DRM is a barrier to HTML5 and Netflix, then I wonder how Netflix is on so many devices.

iPhone = not using Silverlight
iPad = not using Silverlight
Mac = Silverlight
Wii = ??
PS3 = ??

Anybody know how it's being technically implemented on the iPhone for instance? The streams have to be H.264 I'm thinking, but how is it being delivered.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Netflix and Silverlight
by Nelson on Sun 31st Oct 2010 15:14 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Silverlight"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Those devices are closed by nature, so I think they can do it without much risk.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netflix and Silverlight
by Deviate_X on Mon 1st Nov 2010 14:03 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Silverlight"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

There no point in implementing software DRM when the device and firmware DRM.

iPad,iPhone,Wii andd PS3 are all sealed DRM'ed devices.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netflix and Silverlight
by dukes on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:42 UTC in reply to "Netflix and Silverlight"
dukes Member since:
2005-07-06

My question is mainly technical. Does anybody know what codec/mechanism Netflix uses for those devices? Why bury my comment? I'm just asking. ;)

Reply Score: 1