OSNews

They're also very slow to respond to changes in the market, compared to their competitors. Even if they start today on adding support for those standards, I'd not expect them to be shipping that support for at least a year, probably more - it'll come whenever their next major release occurs.

And they are losing there vendor lock-in battle. Good news for customers, ISV, competition. Bad news for Microsoft who indeed has to compete now. How well that works out without there vendor-lockin we see with WinPhone.

Absolute Rubbish major parts of the ASP.NET stack is Open Source now.

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mvc-web-a...

There is nothing from me developing MVC apps for the Mono Framework.

OOXML is an ISO standard, C# is a ISO standard ... I could go on.



None of the web browsers had any decent support for standards til 2009.

Competition from Firefox didn't make them adhere to standards, Firefox 1 and 2 were hardly standards compliant.

Your argument is deeply flawed. The competition came in that Firefox offered a better browsing experience than IE6 (mainly tabs and the plugins community). This is why I use Firefox today, because I prefer the interface.



While version of OpenGL I think you mean, OpenGL ES is the only OpenGL standard that is widely support its completeness.

I can't speak about ASP.NET specifically, but the .NET is only just open enough to make some .NET applications barely run. However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.

One great example of this is the DRM extensions; and thus the reason why Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).

What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).


OOXML was written because MS wanted to lock people into MS Office but were forced to use an open standard by the EU.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do. Instead, they create their own incompatible standard that nobody else uses but them.


C# is another example of MS creating a new standard to trash an existing standard. In this case .NET was invented to trash Java (though C# / .NET has evolved since). What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.

If MS cared about standards, they'd have released a Sun Java compatible IDE like Borland had.


Please do, because every one of your examples demonstrates how MS had shunned established standards


Firefox 1 & 2 were significantly more standard compliant than IE (hence why I used Phoenix & Firebird) and Firefox 3 was released in 2006. Plus there was Opera and kHTML-based browsers. Hell, even webkit was released in 2005, nearly half a decade before you claimed the competition began.

So I really don't know where you pulled the '2009' figure from, but it's grossly inaccurate.

Edited 2012-12-18 12:43 UTC

Others already explained that IE was the slowest to adopt standards, OOXML was used to subvert ODF and regarding OpenGL - let's see any kind of support for it on their Xbox and Windows RT. Whether it's OpenGL ES or full blown OpenGL is purely theoretical, since neither is supported there.

Firefox was always far more standards compliant than IE...
Their support for standards in earlier versions was limited not by a desire to lock people in but by shear practicality, with IE having as much marketshare as it did firefox needed compatibility, not implementing more standards that wouldn't have gotten used at the time anyway.

You failed to address the "vendor lock-in" part.
Open source is not open standard.
Mono is far from being an alternative.

OOXML has so many "extensions"(read - blobs from the earlier Office formats) and even Microsoft does not implement OOXML fully.

Now look at actual viable alternatives and how Microsoft reacts to those...


But what am I saying... Microsoft fanboy will always come to defense.