Why no serious MS Application in .NET yet ??

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?

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23cgAZ%231GFHA.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.

The first public release of .NET was in 2/02. That makes .NET 3 years old,
not 5.

> 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?

I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23cgAZ%231GFHA.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.

The first public release of .NET was in 2/02. That makes .NET 3 years old,
not 5.

> 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?

I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.

What do you mean by 'Serious' application? Do you mean desktop
applications only?

From what I understand Biztalk 2004 is almost all managed code, and I
would consider that a 'serious' application.

Scott M. wrote:
> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23cgAZ%231GFHA.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.
>
>
> The first public release of .NET was in 2/02. That makes .NET 3 years old,
> not 5.
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
> applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
> OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
> WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.
>
>

It is certainly possible to include the .NET runtime with an install. Even
after Longhorn is released it will be a long time before XP and W2K (or for
that matter, ME or 98) go away. Certainly as the number and maturity of
"baked in" managed interfaces increases, it will become easier to write and
distribute large commercial applications in .NET, but it is nevertheless
feasible today.

I would say that a much more significant reason is simply that the cost of
completely rewriting the entire codebase of a massive product like Office is
probably way too much to overcome even the benefits of .NET. What is
already starting to happen is that interfacing .NET applications to Office
is being supported via Primary Interop Assemblies. In future releases, I'd
expect managed interfaces to Office functionality will be "baked in" to
Office, and at that point, parts of Office (especially new ones) will begin
to be written as managed code. At some point, a few years down the road
when a complete rework is indicated for business reasons, I suspect that
individual office apps will one by one be rewritten mostly in managed code,
probably a combination of managed C++ and C#. And I suspect there will
always be a smattering of assembler hiding in there.

Microsoft is certainly willing to eat its own dog food, but you must never
forget that it takes time for the marketplace to absorb any new technology,
no matter how motivated people are and how good the technology may be.

--Bob

"Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:e8gcuH2GFHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
> applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
> OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
> WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.

It is certainly possible to include the .NET runtime with an install. Even
after Longhorn is released it will be a long time before XP and W2K (or for
that matter, ME or 98) go away. Certainly as the number and maturity of
"baked in" managed interfaces increases, it will become easier to write and
distribute large commercial applications in .NET, but it is nevertheless
feasible today.

I would say that a much more significant reason is simply that the cost of
completely rewriting the entire codebase of a massive product like Office is
probably way too much to overcome even the benefits of .NET. What is
already starting to happen is that interfacing .NET applications to Office
is being supported via Primary Interop Assemblies. In future releases, I'd
expect managed interfaces to Office functionality will be "baked in" to
Office, and at that point, parts of Office (especially new ones) will begin
to be written as managed code. At some point, a few years down the road
when a complete rework is indicated for business reasons, I suspect that
individual office apps will one by one be rewritten mostly in managed code,
probably a combination of managed C++ and C#. And I suspect there will
always be a smattering of assembler hiding in there.

Microsoft is certainly willing to eat its own dog food, but you must never
forget that it takes time for the marketplace to absorb any new technology,
no matter how motivated people are and how good the technology may be.

--Bob

"Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:e8gcuH2GFHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
> applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
> OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
> WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.

>So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft >itself use "DOTNET" in
>its applications?
valid question. At this point, I don't know the answer to that question.

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


"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23cgAZ%231GFHA.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?
>
>
>
>
>
>

>So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft >itself use "DOTNET" in
>its applications?
valid question. At this point, I don't know the answer to that question.

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


"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23cgAZ%231GFHA.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?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Herr Lucifer wrote:

> 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?

Don't forget that .NET is mainly about writing *custom* business
applications, just like J2EE. By definition, that's exactly the type of
software you cannot simply buy from Microsoft ;-)

I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a managed code version
Office or any other established MS product. There's simply no business
case for that.

Cheers,
--
http://www.joergjooss.de
mailto:news-reply@joergjooss.de

Herr Lucifer wrote:

> 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?

Don't forget that .NET is mainly about writing *custom* business
applications, just like J2EE. By definition, that's exactly the type of
software you cannot simply buy from Microsoft ;-)

I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a managed code version
Office or any other established MS product. There's simply no business
case for that.

Cheers,
--
http://www.joergjooss.de
mailto:news-reply@joergjooss.de