Re: .NET myths debunked.
From: Will DeWitt Jr. (edge_at_boink.net)
Date: 01/05/04
- Next message: Nick Hodges (TeamB): "Re: Delphi 8 doesn't work with some Developer Express components"
- Previous message: chrisC: "Re: Why use Delphi 8?"
- In reply to: Randall Parker: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Next in thread: Dave Jewell: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Reply: Dave Jewell: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Reply: Kevin: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 4 Jan 2004 16:53:24 -0700
Randall Parker wrote:
> Are there any warning dialogs popping up when you try to run DOS apps
> from the 1980s? There are probably some DOS apps that are
> incompatible. But many still run.
>
> How about warning dialogs for Win16 apps?
>
> Win32 is going to last for decades. As for its days being numbered:
> Many of us will probably die first.
I think you're confused. Win16 was a technological improvement over
DOS, as Win32 was an improvement over Win16. Win16 provided access to
more memory and a standardized GUI interface (whereas with DOS you were
forced to roll your own, use EMS/XMS or a DPMI interface). Win32
expanded upon that by providing for a flat memory model that forever
rid us of dealing with segments, as well as forcing code to 32-bit
(e.g. - use the extended CPU registers rather than the old 16-bit
registers).
Because of that, there was no reason to put a "warning" dialog up
because there was nothing fundamentally unsafe about the older code.
DOS apps existing in virtual 8086 sandboxes, and Win16 apps existed in
yet another sandbox, but they were just as speedy as their Win32
counterpart, they just lacked easy access to more memory and a simpler
memory model.
.NET, OTOH, is being propped up as being safer (no more pointers, a
garbage collector to minimize the chances of memory leaks, and the
ability for admins to limit what kind of code can be ran). .NET brings
nothing new technology wise to the table other than a half-hearted
attempt to make something that can be cross-platform (and I say
half-hearted because .NET code is likely only going to be
cross-platform when it's ran on systems that implement WinForms and the
other Windows specific portions of the framework).
As far as Win32 being pushed to the back burner, one need only visit
Microsoft's Longhorn SDK online to note that there's either a) no
coverage of new Longhorn Win32 API's or b) there simply are no new
Longhorn Win32 API's--
http://longhorn.msdn.microsoft.com/
Everything documented there seems to indicate that it's only accessible
via .NET (or via Win32 somehow connecting with .NET namespaces, which
one imagines would be slower than simply doing the same from a .NET
app).
Anyways, it's delusional to think Microsoft won't play off safety and
security as a prime reason to avoid non-.NET apps. They already (on
Windows XP and Windows Server 2003) provide warning dialogs for
unsigned driver installations, I imagine popping up warning dialogs for
non-.NET apps would just be a logical extension of that (and of course,
anything signed or shipped by MS as part of Longhorn or Office would
likely be listed in any exception list to the rule).
Let me repeat something I've said elsewhere so there's no mistaking my
beliefs-- I do NOT believe that Win32 code is unsafe, I DO believe that
Microsoft will market Longhorn that way however, and I DO believe
consumers are just gullible enough to believe it.
Will
- Next message: Nick Hodges (TeamB): "Re: Delphi 8 doesn't work with some Developer Express components"
- Previous message: chrisC: "Re: Why use Delphi 8?"
- In reply to: Randall Parker: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Next in thread: Dave Jewell: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Reply: Dave Jewell: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Reply: Kevin: "Re: .NET myths debunked."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
