Linked by vodoomoth on Mon 27th Sep 2010 13:10 UTC
Internet Explorer Microsoft has "set up and removed" having Windows 7 Service Pack 1 as a prerequisite to running (or, more correctly, "installing") IE9, in the space of just 2 days.
Thread beginning with comment 442915
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: himanshu
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Sep 2010 03:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: himanshu"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Debatable about the benefits. There is a huge penalty to working exclusively with .net in that your application will likely be constrained to a smallish market (those running Vista and Win 7)

All versions of .net work with XP. There are however some feature and development limitations related to XP that I don't want to get into especially since you haven't read the basics. In a nutshell applications get stuck at XP level for .net devs thanks to XP holdouts but even with those limitations the productivity benefits typically outweigh being unable to target OSX. For enterprise it is an easy choice where every computer runs Windows.

I already said that in a few years Qt will provide some serious competition, why not be patient and wait? The market has not shifted to .net out of conspiracy. Java on the desktop just plain sucks and Qt has only been decent recently and still has some native integration issues in OSX that need to be resolved. Once Qt apps are indistinguishable from native apps then you will see greater adoption.

Fonts are one such issue and you can read about the problem directly from a nokia developer:
http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2010/09/09/a-second-spring-of-text-rasteri...

You seem to not realize that I am not wed to .net or msft. I used to work with Java and if the world switched to Qt I would shrug and continue writing code. However a major switch does not make sense at this point but in a few years Qt will have a much wider appeal. There are plenty of factors working in favor of Qt, your advocacy efforts are not needed.


There is indeed a "write once, run anywhere" framework. Actually there are a few: java, Qt, GTK - this is why we have OpenOffice, VLC/Inkscape and Firefox/Chrome respectively, as examples, that are already cross-platform applications.


Cross-platform and "write once, run anywhere" are not the same thing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: himanshu
by lemur2 on Tue 28th Sep 2010 05:04 in reply to "RE[5]: himanshu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Cross-platform and "write once, run anywhere" are not the same thing.


Agreed. Unlike java, GTK and Qt do not provide "write once, run anywhere". What they do provide is "minimum effort protability via a re-compile".

With perhaps a few conditional-compilation statements embedded in your codebase, you can write a Qt application that you can compile for (and continue to upgrade and maintain) multiple different platforms. Even ARM platforms.

It is not quite "write once", but it is close. Certainly the entirity of Qt itself has to be ported in full to each platform, but that is done already.

This was perhaps an original design ideal for .NET, but Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by trying to constrain .NET applications to be able to work on different versions of Windows but not to work on different platforms entirely. Trying to maintain the latter inability has crept into ruining the former ability. Newer features of .NET are not available on older .NET installations, and older versions of Windows are (or at least soon to be) no longer supported with .NET updates.

Hence, in their desire to try to get people to upgrade to Win 7 (and hence pay for Windows over again), Microsoft is leaving a large portion of what was previously Microsoft's market (specifically users running Win XP, especially users of older hardware which cannot run Win 7) entirely up to other software vendors to cater to.

So Microsoft won't provide GPU acceleration for IE9 on Win XP? Fine ... other software vendors are more than happy to provide Win XP users with an alternative browser which does feature GPU acceleration.

Expect more of the same for other software products from Microsoft as time moves along.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: himanshu
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Sep 2010 22:11 in reply to "RE[6]: himanshu"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


It is not quite "write once", but it is close. Certainly the entirity of Qt itself has to be ported in full to each platform, but that is done already.


It is ported but there are all kinds of issues that have to be dealt with like native UI integration, OS specific calls, weird platform specific bugs, and more. That nokia blog post I linked to showed that fonts are still a work in progress. Operating systems are incredibly complex, you have no idea as to how easy it is to run into a bug like this one:
http://www.qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/merge_requests/791

Java tries to sidestep a lot of these platform specific problems with the JVM but it still has a whole bunch of issues that you can read about elsewhere.


This was perhaps an original design ideal for .NET, but Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by trying to constrain .NET applications to be able to work on different versions of Windows but not to work on different platforms entirely.


The central problem is that they cannot go back and rebuild existing installations of XP. Those newer .net packs make use of technology that is built into Vista/7 at a much deeper level. They have not shot themselves in the foot, there is simply a transition at work. This transition along with the tendency of XP users to have older .net versions encourages software companies to keep development at an older level.


Newer features of .NET are not available on older .NET installations,


Again those features are typically specific to the underlying system, not .net. You couldn't access them with Qt in XP either as they don't exist. The fact that Firefox is only GPU rendered in Vista/7 is a good example of this.

The end result is that most Windows applications are built around XP in an older version of .net. XP holdouts discourage the use of technologies specific to Vista and 7 like DX10/11 and Direct2D.

I think what they should do is offer a $50 upgrade for XP users. The large install base of XP has too much market influence. The vast majority of ISVs cannot break from XP like MS is doing with IE9.

Reply Parent Score: 2