Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Aug 2006 19:10 UTC, submitted by Dolphin
.NET (dotGNU too) "Four short years ago, Microsoft unveiled its new framework/engine for programming and running applications in a virtual environment, and the world was stunned. Microsoft had introduced a run-time environment that was for the first time a true 'write once, run everywhere' implementation, but that was far from being the end. With .NET 3.0 on the loom, NeoSmart Technologies takes a look at how far .NET has come and just how long it can keep going."
Thread beginning with comment 151587
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
zambizzi
Member since:
2006-04-23

This is the MSDN crowd taking over the direction Windows goes at MS. I do *not* see this going over well. It's a strong-armed attempt at forcing those comfortable w/ Win32, MFC, etc. to use .NET instead.

.NET is just not mature enough for such a high place in Windows, IMO.

It's no wonder why the hardware requirements for Vista are so high-end.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Nex6 Member since:
2005-07-06

every major version of windows has had higher sysreq then the one it replaces. even Gnome and KDE requirements change over time.



-Nex6

Reply Parent Score: 1

zambizzi Member since:
2006-04-23

Incremental, sure...this drastic? Nah. How much greater were the hw reqs for moving from NT to 2000? How about 2000 to XP? Not much.

How about Gnome 2.8 to 2.14? KDE 3.0 to 3.5? The memory consumption for both of those DEs have actually been reduced considerably. That trend is set to continue as well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

.NET is just not mature enough for such a high place in Windows, IMO.

Care to back up that statement with some facts.

If you've got a case against Microsoft, lets stick to the realms of reality, shall we?!

Reply Parent Score: 2