Board index » delphi » Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...


2004-09-29 03:56:54 AM
delphi182
"Eric Grange" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>a écrit dans le message de news:
XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
Quote
Anyway, I guess the real MS internal fun has already begun for
the WGF, and it'll be interesting to see how thin the .Net layer
actually turns out to be (and how much .Net there will be in
the WGF specs fro XBOX2)
Don't forget the .NET layer is only temporarily on top of Win32; the
ultimate goal is that .NET will be the OS and we might get a partial Win32
compatibility layer. Apparently we may be surprised to see just how little
of the present API will be supported.
This is not speculation; this is 'straight from the horse's mouth' (someone
from M$)
Joanna
Consultant Software Engineer
TeamBUG support for UK-BUG
TeamMM support for ModelMaker
 
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Can you provide your name/nick or some kind of signature !
Saludos
Sebastian
"DLS" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>escribi?en el mensaje
Quote
hi all
I am not quite sure is there a suitable place of this post.
I have been a Borland fan and a Delphi fan since Delphi 1. Since Delphi
is
like a independent fighter in
development tool world. But, now, Delphi has become a part of .NET
technology, so...
sigh, my Delphi is dead, it is no longer a fighter now...



 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

"Yannis" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>a écrit dans le message de news:
XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
Quote
Although I do like some features .Net has I do not see it as a
competitor or the solution MS wants as to see it for, I do not
say do not supported I just say do not place all your eggs in
one basket and stay open minded. I do prefare to be able to compile
native application for win16, win32, win64 etc on intel alpha etc
even if this meens that I have to re code and re compile for
each platform than to use .net. I do have installed because
I have no choise.
So what is wrong with being able to write 'code once, deploy to any 'size'
platform' as you can with .NET?
Quote
For the time being I see that I will have to use it because D9 IDE
uses it. I do not like it and I do expect the next move from Borland.
Never the less D9 has some features that I like and I will proably
update to it will this be a vote for .Net if yes then I prefare to
continue using my Delphi 6 as it is now.
See my reply to Eric Grange
Joanna
Consultant Software Engineer
TeamBUG support for UK-BUG
TeamMM support for ModelMaker
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Quote
>And the louder the Buzz, the more potential they will see that there
>is a market for 64bit.

They are market driven, not newsgroup driven. <g>
Is not the newsgroup poster part of that market? The newsgroups can
not define a market, but can be an indicator of what their customers
are looking for.
The hardest (and most expensive) customer to get is one that has never
given you a dime. We have already given our monetery support to one or
more of Borland's products. Taking our money on a new product is the
easiest (and cheapest) money they can make.
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Jason Southwell writes:
Quote
>>And the louder the Buzz, the more potential they will see that
>>there is a market for 64bit.
>
>They are market driven, not newsgroup driven. <g>

Is not the newsgroup poster part of that market?
A very small part.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
"When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job
knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why god? Why
me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, "There's just something
about you that pisses me off." -- Stephen King.
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Quote
And the louder the Buzz, the more potential they will see that there is
a market for 64bit.

If no one talks about it, then certainly the topic will die and there
will be no chance.
Oh, please! As Brent S. reminds us, Borland is cautious about publicly
announcing their plans. My suspicion is that Borland is both
investigating the market, and beginning to lay the groundwork for future
development. I can not know that for sure, and the one thing I know for
sure is that nothing I say is going to force Borland to reveal their
plans ahead of their schedule.
What's getting rather tedious is the same few people constantly harping
on and on about why Borland should announce their plans today, if not
sooner. I suppose when Borland finally does announce plans for 64-bit
development, those same people will be convinced that it was only because
of their shouting and screaming in this newsgroup. In reality, multiple
postings by a handful of people in this newsgroup have little to do with
what Borland does or does not decide to do.
Rick Carter
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on delphi.newswhat.com
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

"Joanna Carter (TeamB)" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
This is not speculation; this is 'straight from the horse's mouth'
(someone
from M$)

Do you have a single link to MSDN or anywhere else backing up you
assertions?
Thought not.
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

"Joanna Carter (TeamB)" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
"Eric Grange" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>a écrit dans le message de news:
XXXX@XXXXX.COM...

>Anyway, I guess the real MS internal fun has already begun for
>the WGF, and it'll be interesting to see how thin the .Net layer
>actually turns out to be (and how much .Net there will be in
>the WGF specs fro XBOX2)

Don't forget the .NET layer is only temporarily on top of Win32; the
ultimate goal is that .NET will be the OS and we might get a partial Win32
compatibility layer. Apparently we may be surprised to see just how little
of the present API will be supported.
And it will all be built on top of Native code. The only way around it is
to produce a .NET processor.
The Win32 vs. .NET discussion isn't about the Win32 API, it is about Native
compilation, which MS will always have to support.
Any Win32 compatibility layer will likely be natively run, rather than .NET
filtered.
Quote

This is not speculation; this is 'straight from the horse's mouth'
(someone
from M$)

The Microsoft horse is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Look at
what they're doing, not what they're saying.
Brent S.
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Quote
Oh, please! As Brent S. reminds us, Borland is cautious about
publicly announcing their plans. My suspicion is that Borland is
They publically announce pleanty nowdays due to the open policy on blog
posting.
Quote
plans for 64-bit development, those same people will be convinced
that it was only because of their shouting and screaming in this
newsgroup. In reality, multiple postings by a handful of people in
this newsgroup have little to do with what Borland does or does not
decide to do.
I'm not one of that "Handfull" that you are referring to. I voted for
the QC entry and haven't said much here. In fact, 64 bit was no where
mentioned in my post which started this thread. Where else have you
seen me go on and on about 64 bit?
I do however believe that having 64 bit mentioned frequently in the NGs
is going to help the 64 bit cause, not harm it. Ever hear the phrase
"Squeeky wheel gets the grease"? it is a phrase for a reason.
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Dennis Landi writes:
Quote
Do you have a single link to MSDN or anywhere else backing up you
assertions?
msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/Support/lhdevfaq/default.aspx
n_AvalonVsWin32
<quote>
parts of Win32 will be considered “legacy�starting with Longhorn,
just like Win16 was “legacy�with Windows 95.
</quote>
--
Leo Saguisag
Delphi l10n engineer
About the Borland newsgroups: info.borland.com/newsgroups/
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Joanna Carter (TeamB) writes:
Quote
Don't forget the .NET layer is only temporarily on top of Win32; the
ultimate goal is that .NET will be the OS and we might get a partial
Win32 compatibility layer. Apparently we may be surprised to see just
how little of the present API will be supported.

This is not speculation; this is 'straight from the horse's mouth'
(someone from M$)
We already know that is not going to happen in Longhorn.
1) Lots of MS Bloggers have said that the .net stuff in Longhorn lives
on top of Win32/64.
2) The OS team works REALLY hard at maintaining compatability.
Gratituitously breaking compatability just ain't going to happen.
3) SQL Server isn't going .net anytime soon. Sure Yukon supports .net.
But it hosts the CLR, not the other way around. SQL Server itself
doesn't use any .net services. On the other hand, the CLR uses SQL
Server for memory management, and other services.
4) They're just now dropping support for Win16, and that is only for the
64 bit versions of Windows. (See 2.)
I just don't see the .net people in software tools taking on the OS
and SQL Server people and winning.
--
Mike Swaim XXXX@XXXXX.COM at home | Quote: "Boingie"^4 Y,W & D
MD Anderson Dept. of Biostatistics & Applied Mathematics
XXXX@XXXXX.COM or XXXX@XXXXX.COM at work
ICBM: 29.763N 95.363W|Disclaimer: Yeah, like I speak for MD Anderson.
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

"Leo Saguisag (Borland)" <lsaguisag_at_borland_dot_com>writes
Quote
Dennis Landi writes:

>Do you have a single link to MSDN or anywhere else backing up you
>assertions?

msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/Support/lhdevfaq/default.aspx
n_AvalonVsWin32

<quote>
parts of Win32 will be considered "legacy" starting with Longhorn,
just like Win16 was "legacy" with Windows 95.
</quote>

That in no way supports Joanna's assertion the Win32 will be an emulation
layer thru .NET.
OF COURSE WIN32 WILL BE LEGACY... That isn't the point.
-d
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Joanna Carter (TeamB) writes:
Quote
Apparently we may be surprised to see just how little of the present
API will be supported.
By the time "little of the present API will be supported" Longhorn will
be history. What is more likely is the .Net eventually will introduce a
new API that will render Win32 old fashion.
But Windows not supporting legacy apps? Doubtful.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

Dennis Landi writes:
Quote
That in no way supports Joanna's assertion the Win32 will be an
emulation layer thru .NET.
D'oh! My bad, though I should point out that she did not claim as
such, actually. To quote from her earlier:
<quote>
we _might_ get a partial Win32 compatibility layer
</quote>
Emphasis is mine. Point being she never claimed it as fact, which you
seem to be interpreting as such, just as speculation.
--
Leo Saguisag
Delphi l10n engineer
About the Borland newsgroups: info.borland.com/newsgroups/
 

Re: Actually I am a little bit disappointed...

"Brent S." <brentatatmosoftdotcom>writes:
Quote


And it will all be built on top of Native code. The only way around it is
to produce a .NET processor.
The Win32 vs. .NET discussion isn't about the Win32 API, it is about Native
compilation, which MS will always have to support.
Any Win32 compatibility layer will likely be natively run, rather than .NET
filtered.

And .NET is easy to get all the way to native code with ngen. Has
from the very beginning.