Why no serious MS Application in .NET yet ?? - Framework and Interface Programming

That is why I said there is a lot of work to do.
There is (almost) nothing done yet.

I know Lutz Reflector and i am not kidding.

regards,
Alejandro Lapeyre

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:O5ntJlAHFHA.3092@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "alejandro lapeyre" <alejandrolapeyre@jotmail.com> wrote
>> The .NET is great, but it needs a lot of work to replace the windows api.
>> Before asking that Office is written in .NET, the ListBox should be
>> written in .NET!
>
> Replace the API? You're kidding! Dot Net doesn't really do anything on its
> own. It only calls the unmanegd APIs (built in Win32) from a managed
> environment. Take a look inside the framework yourslef to see what is
> really there.
> Download and use this disassembler: (Reflector)
> "http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet"
>

When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal CLR.
That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office goes,
or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe even
after).

There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.

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

*************************************************
Think outside the box!
*************************************************
"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#cgAZ#1GFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
> mum.
> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
> themselves?
>
>
>
>
>
>

When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal CLR.
That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office goes,
or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe even
after).

There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.

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

*************************************************
Think outside the box!
*************************************************
"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#cgAZ#1GFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
> mum.
> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
> themselves?
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:53:46 +0100, "Cor Ligthert"
<notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote:
>This changes of course when .Net they will implement in the OS in the same
>way as IE was done in past. However, probably you know the law problems that
>has given, because of the rumours their concurrent made, so I assume they
>have to think twice.

And even then, considering that most willing users dropped from the
upgrade cycle with Office95*, what killer features could Microsoft
come up with in their Office product that would justify rewriting this
huge piece of software with the .Net API?

There's just no economic value in rewriting what works now. Instead,
with time, they'll probably use .Net to write new products, and
add-ons to existing products, as .Net becomes a standard component of
Windows.

Joe.

* by far, those using more recent versions do it not because they went
out and bought the upgrades, but simply because the latest version
comes preinstalled on new computers

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:53:46 +0100, "Cor Ligthert"
<notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote:
>This changes of course when .Net they will implement in the OS in the same
>way as IE was done in past. However, probably you know the law problems that
>has given, because of the rumours their concurrent made, so I assume they
>have to think twice.

And even then, considering that most willing users dropped from the
upgrade cycle with Office95*, what killer features could Microsoft
come up with in their Office product that would justify rewriting this
huge piece of software with the .Net API?

There's just no economic value in rewriting what works now. Instead,
with time, they'll probably use .Net to write new products, and
add-ons to existing products, as .Net becomes a standard component of
Windows.

Joe.

* by far, those using more recent versions do it not because they went
out and bought the upgrades, but simply because the latest version
comes preinstalled on new computers

Does that mean that *new products (ex Internet Explorer 7) would be partial
or fully .NET?

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------


"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamM_gbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:Of7AN0AHFHA.3912@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal
> CLR.
> That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office
> goes,
> or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
> would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe
> even
> after).
>
> There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
> released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.
>
> --
> Gregory A. Beamer
> MVP; MCP: +I, SD, SE, DBA
>
> *************************************************
> Think outside the box!
> *************************************************
> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:#cgAZ#1GFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
> be
>> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
>> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
> his
>> mum.
>> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
>> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
> are
>> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
> "DOTNET"
>> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
>> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
> run
>> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
>> themselves?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Does that mean that *new products (ex Internet Explorer 7) would be partial
or fully .NET?

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------


"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamM_gbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:Of7AN0AHFHA.3912@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal
> CLR.
> That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office
> goes,
> or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
> would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe
> even
> after).
>
> There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
> released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.
>
> --
> Gregory A. Beamer
> MVP; MCP: +I, SD, SE, DBA
>
> *************************************************
> Think outside the box!
> *************************************************
> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:#cgAZ#1GFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
> be
>> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
>> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
> his
>> mum.
>> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
>> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
> are
>> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
> "DOTNET"
>> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
>> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
> run
>> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
>> themselves?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

The Avalon is partially in .NET ( I mean the one in XP freestyle Longhorn),
hence it is too slow. That's the main issue i think. Things are gonna slow
down when come from c++ into .NET . However, i think the future graphic
cards driver might solve that GDI+ problem.

"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:OtkApxBHFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does that mean that *new products (ex Internet Explorer 7) would be
> partial or fully .NET?
>
> --
> Regards
> Alvin Bruney
> [Shameless Author Plug]
> The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
> available at www.lulu.com/owc
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamM_gbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
> message news:Of7AN0AHFHA.3912@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal
>> CLR.
>> That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office
>> goes,
>> or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
>> would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe
>> even
>> after).
>>
>> There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
>> released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Beamer
>> MVP; MCP: +I, SD, SE, DBA
>>
>> *************************************************
>> Think outside the box!
>> *************************************************
>> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:#cgAZ#1GFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
>>> will
>> be
>>> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
>>> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
>> his
>>> mum.
>>> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
>>> again,
>>> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
>> are
>>> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
>> "DOTNET"
>>> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
>>> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
>> run
>>> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
>>> themselves?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

The Avalon is partially in .NET ( I mean the one in XP freestyle Longhorn),
hence it is too slow. That's the main issue i think. Things are gonna slow
down when come from c++ into .NET . However, i think the future graphic
cards driver might solve that GDI+ problem.

"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:OtkApxBHFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Does that mean that *new products (ex Internet Explorer 7) would be
> partial or fully .NET?
>
> --
> Regards
> Alvin Bruney
> [Shameless Author Plug]
> The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
> available at www.lulu.com/owc
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamM_gbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
> message news:Of7AN0AHFHA.3912@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal
>> CLR.
>> That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office
>> goes,
>> or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
>> would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe
>> even
>> after).
>>
>> There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
>> released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Beamer
>> MVP; MCP: +I, SD, SE, DBA
>>
>> *************************************************
>> Think outside the box!
>> *************************************************
>> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:#cgAZ#1GFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
>>> will
>> be
>>> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
>>> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
>> his
>>> mum.
>>> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
>>> again,
>>> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
>> are
>>> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
>> "DOTNET"
>>> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
>>> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
>> run
>>> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
>>> themselves?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>