Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Java Programming

MS XP Drops Java Support 367

Posted by timothy
from the in-or-out dept.
Indicating this ZDnet article, an Anonymous Coward writes: "Something I haven't seen mentioned before; XP will apparently drop Java support, not only for Java apps, but in the browser as well. XP users can still download and install Java seperately, but of course, how many will choose to do so?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS XP Drops Java Support

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    You are a moron. Do you think we care about people like you? Of course you're going to download the JVM. Unfortunately, web designers have to write pages for *gasp* average people! Guess what.. they use *gasp* 56k modems! More than that, like others have already said, they're reluctant to install software.
  • I remember the first time I hit a java page. It was back in the early Netscape 2 beta period or late 1.x series IIRC. I remember my computer ran out of memory trying to initalize the jvm and crashed. They say the first impression is the most important, maybe that's why I harbor a lingering distrust for java...

    Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
  • by Masem (1171) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:29AM (#77477)
    The spokesman said the Java support in Windows up until now "is a lot of code that many users don't need ..."

    ...users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work. Without this step, "any Web page that contains Java applications will not run -- it will be a dead page,"

    Apparently, Microsoft execs have not surfed the web recent; it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads. I wonder if this move may entice some web advertizers to take issue with MS for removing a key component for viewing their ads.

  • by Masem (1171) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @06:09AM (#77478)
    It may be an annoyence to 100% of the users, but only a small minority of users actually take the steps necessary to block ads (which is why ad-blocking software has yet to be legally challenged; it's not making a major impact on advertizers bottom lines). Now, MS is going to effectively block java-based ads for 95% of the browsing market; this will not go unnoticed.

    Yes, advertizing in Java is a poor choice, but we've already been through banner ads that didn't work, and there's nothing else except for Java and Flash that advertizers seem willing to try. I'm not sympathizing with the advertizers here, just trying to see it from their frame of mind, and this move by MS is very harmful to their bottom line (which has been dropping further and further over the years).

    And yes, there are useful Java apps. Java games are highly popular (Bejeweled for example). I know many educators' web sites that use Java for interactive tutorials and demonstrations that could not be effectively done in large classes.

    Java is not a bad technology; it's just a technology that was used badly that turned many people off of it.

  • Now, Microsoft harnesses the other thing they KNOW about the user - the thing used to kill netscape. The user does not change his default settings. Most users never change their browser home page. Most users never install any new software to work with their browser. Most users never delete the icons that ship on their first boot screen.

    So, Microsoft bundle things with their OS... and that's bad.

    And Microsoft don't bundle things with their OS... and that's bad too.

    Just wish these slashbots would make up their minds about what they want.

  • by Sabalon (1684) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:38AM (#77480)
    Okay...pretty much everytime I have something that needs Java, trying to run it in IE, unless it's a bouncing ball, is a pain. So, you download the JRE and you're set.

    But saying they're doing it for security reasons is just a joke. IIRC, Java applets can only connect back to the server they came from. IIRC, Java doesn't have the Win32 API and can't open your address book and make MAPI calls to spam everyone you know.

    Sure, there may be a 1% chance that some hack will be twarted because of them removing Java, but as little as I try to bash MS, until they fix Outlook/Outlook express and the security problem with html/attachments, it's not going to matter.
    It seems like every other week there is a new hack via Outlook...I don't even think the most recent one made it on /. - we're sick of hearing about it too.
  • >Office XP will only work on Windows XP

    While I don't disagree that MS may strongarm people, it's important to note that Office XP is already out, and works fine under Windows 9X/ME and Windows 2K. As for the bundling Java issue, as an earlier poster pointed out, up till now, MS was shipping something based on 1.1, not the 1.4 from Sun. At least this way, developers won't be stuck catering to the lowest common Java version, maybe we'll see some apps using the new performance and features of 1.4. I suppose I'm being idealistic here...
  • Huh? Those automated little ads are generally run using Macromedia Flash content.

    That or animated GIFs.
  • I use Mozilla all the time, and it doesn't come with JVM either - and I haven't needed Java applet support for ages, so I have just not bothered to even install it! I think the last place I used Java was in E2 Java Chatterbox, and another chat application was in use in one of the courses ehre... and, um, that's about that for me "using" Java for anything.

    These days, people seem to use much more of Flash for the "irritating blinky content" that Java was formerly so largely used for, though - that's good, because Flash is not slow to download and get running, like Java applets.

    I see no problem in "download Java separately if you need it" approach.

  • when you hit a page that needs java for the first time a thing pops up asking if you want to download the java thing with a big OK button
    You don't understand. Even that is enough to scare many users off, because it "changes" their computer. It doesn't matter how easy you make it; making it necessary to install new software, no matter how easy you make that process, will frighten a very large portion of users so much that they won't do it. This is particularly true of Windows users, from what I've seen, but it happens in other communities too.

    This is Microsoft's ace in the hole. It controls, to a large degree, what gets installed with a machine. If it comes with a computer, chances are the user will never switch, and they won't even upgrade what they have. It's stupid, but people are just that way. And Microsoft can ruthlessly exploit that.
    ----------
  • by Millennium (2451) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @06:11AM (#77488) Homepage
    ...well, no it isn't. But most users think it is. And that's all that matters, because they act on what they perceive, not what is real. Stupid? You bet. But it's the way things are.

    Honestly: the average user is outright afraid to change anything on their computer. It's a "magic box" that will break if they do anything to it. You have no idea how many times I've seen this with users. They don't want to upgrade if they can possibly avoid it, and installing new software is even more to be avoided. I know one guy who got so mad when a beta release of some software he was using expired that he now boycotts that company because ""they released it for download, so it must have been ready for general use."

    This is the fact Microsoft is banking on: computer-wise, the average user is a technophobe. Those of us who actually stay current are very much the exception. And because of this, anything Microsoft adds or removes is immediately crippled in the marketplace; users do not want it if they have to do anything whatsoever to get it.
    ----------
  • by KlomDark (6370)
    B8 00 4C CD 21: i386 machine code to terminate a program

    Or, you could use: B4 3C BB 00 00 88 D8 80 C4 10 8E
    C3 9C 26 FF 1E 84 00

    Why am I not afraid?? :)

  • Isn't there a version of Java being developed for release under .NET (by Hewlett-Packard)? I believe so. So, you will be able to run Java under .NET eventually, sort of.

    Why 'sort of'? Well, there is the issue of the Java APIs. I doubt that the providing vendor will get those 100% right, but they might even shoot for J2EE compliance. If Sun is wise, they won't fight that either. .NET will be going everywhere and they have much to lose by keeping Java out of .NET.

    However, .NET won't fix the issue of Java missing from the browser. But Sun has seen this coming for some time now, hence the existence of what used to be called 'Java Activator', now called 'Java Web Start' I think (see http://www.sun.com/software/communitysource/javawe bstart/ for details).

    On the plus side, this does mean we can look forward to not worrying about users actually using Microsoft's Java in browsers. The feature set of that JVM is more limited in terms of the APIs (e.g. Swing) it supports compared to Sun's more current JVMs. Applet developers could actually standardize on a Sun JVM baseline now; not that applets are all that important anymore.

    Come to think of it, this doesn't really even affect most Java client-side application as most of those ship with some version of the JVM anyway.

    *shrug* I guess we saw this coming a long way off though. Microsoft hasn't really surprised anyone on this.
  • If OEM's could install the JVM, that would be GREAT!

    As it is, many large business's won't install another JVM and force software vendors to be compatible with Microsofts JVM. That could now change and the newer JVMs are far better then that ole clunky one Microsoft shipped.

    Now the question is: What will Microsoft do to keep OEM's from installing the JVM?

    LoB

  • I'm really really sad to hear this news.

    I was really really sad to hear the Sun had signed a licensing deal with Microsoft in the first place. That one act kept Java from the desktop as an application foundation. Microsoft did just what they wanted to do, stop java on Windows or at least control it.

    But wait, there is hope. Java is doing well on the servers and it's doing well on phones and soon in TV's. Where Java NEEDS to go is the desktop and Microsoft opened the door. By not installing their JVM in the OS, OEM's can put another, full featured one, in. Remember the days when companies with great ideas could go to OEM's and get them to pre-install applications? There is no duplicity now that Microsoft is removing the MS-VM.

    This could be a day of celebration because unlike the browser war, Java is very well known, and liked, all the way up the management chain.

    The door is open for IBM and/or Sun to start making deals. AND FAST!

    LoB

  • Windows ships without a C compiler, but that didn't kill C. (And yes, I realize you don't need special software to RUN the C programs.)

    All the major web browsers can download this stuff automagically, and that's what will happen. XP systems will be without Java for about five minutes after they're first turned on.

    This means nothing for Java.

    -
  • From the article:

    [The] spokesman said the Java support in Windows up until now "is a lot of code that many users don't need[..]

    Of course Office and Windows itself don't suffer from this unnecessary code bloat, right Mr. Spokesman?

    The timing of this is suspect, considering MS just announced that vendors would be free to add their own software to the system..

  • Do that other crap on your own time instead of when you're on the clock. If your job has any significance whatsoever, and the other things were really important to your job, they'd let you use them. You do the math.


    Cheers,

  • Does anyone seriously believe that such a challenge would win, anywhere in the world? On what grounds could ad blocking possibly be declared unlawful?

    Just a few weeks ago, there was a company that was considering changing how their web browser displayed pages. It wasn't even a proxy that altered the content of a page and then forwarded it to another app; it was all inside the app itself.

    In addition to the public outcry over how stupid it was, there was a significant number of people (even -- bewilderingly -- Robin Gross of EFF) arguing that the application was somehow creating a derivative work w/out the copyright holder's permission, and then redistributing it to the program's user, thereby committing copyright violation. And this was all contained within a single application, where the only conceivable form of "redistribution" was that was happening, was that the application was displaying the derivative work on the screen.

    If that could possibly be copyright violation, then ad-blocking proxies, which can be used to forward the derivative works that they create, to other machine and users, are surely right out.

    Oh, the application in question was MS Internet Explorer, and the offending modification was "Smart Tags." There is simply no way that ad-blocking proxies can be legal if Smart Tags isn't. And a lot of Slashdotters thought Smart Tags were illegal.


    ---
  • Not like it's that hard to download a JVM...
    Cough, try telling that to Enterprise customers with corperate networks firewalled to hell and no administrator access...

    I develop servlet and applet solutions to deliver results to some of the Oil Majors - to get software installed in these environments is a nightmare!

    Also the Java Plugin doesn't work correctly when there is no DNS access (i.e. all lookups are done by the proxy)...

    Also the Java Plugin 1.3.1 auto-download crashes...

    Yeah, as you said easy...

  • Dropping Java from the OS is a great idea. It eliminates the sometimes mysterious errors due to finding the wrong JVM or libraries on your PATH or CLASSPATH. (On the other hand, who would use XP for development?)

    Dropping Java from the browser won't stand. Looking at it from Microsoft's point of view, it's a piece of legacy support they can't drop without pissing off many in their target audience. Imagine the reaction (not from geeks, but from everyone) if they dropped Javascript in favor of VBscript.

  • I am so bloody tired of having to reinstall Windows 2000 because some third party package has installed some HTML that breaks some control panel applet. They're starting to use their built-in rendering engine in there... that's why the new Add/Remove Programs is so slow...

    OK, Microsoft, please rip out the browser. Rip out the HTML rendering. Rip out Active Desktop. There is so much bloat in there, they could cut the NT install to 5 floppies and still include a complete OS...
  • IE has been shipping with an ancient JVM anyway. To use a compliant 1.3 (soon to be 1.4!) JVM in a browser, developers use Sun's Java plugin as an ActiveX control or Netscape Plugin.

    See http://www.javasoft.com/products/plugin/index.html [javasoft.com] for more information on the Java plugin.

    -m

  • I particularly like the take The Register [theregister.co.uk] has on this quote:

    A Redmond spokesman quoted by Reuters described the VM as "a lot of code that many users don't need.".

    Now if only the Beast could do the same for the many megabytes of COM+ code it bundles with every copy of Windows 2000 (a quick run through our Services list shows we've got Microsoft Transaction Co-Ordinator, Event Publisher, Transaction Services Client and a ton of others stuff we didn't ask for), we'd be prepared to call it evens. ®

  • I think it is inaccurate to describe Java as a moving target at this point.

    3+ years ago, when the language was undergoing MAJOR revisions with each release ala the switch from old event model to new event model, and switch from AWT to Swing, that was true.

    However, since Java 2 has been released, things have settled down quite a lot. The language is stable. Sure new features are added, but they aren't the kind that make you go back and redesign lots and lots of code. They are more of the "wow, that is a nice enhancement that will save me lots of time" type.

    Sun has also spent a lot of effort in speeding up Java in the past 18 months. However, most apps don't need to worry about this. They can just take advantage of the increased speed with no extra effort expended bu the developer.

    It seems that today, the largest advances in Java by far occure in the class libraries. However, even here we see that many of the changes are just improvements in the way things worked before. Take JDBC. JDBC code I wrote 2 years ago still works now in JDBC 2. Sure, JDBC 2 added lots of useful things (like built-in connection pooling and data sources), but my code doesn't have to use them to work. JDBC 3 is now in development, and will add more useful things (like statement pools) but once again, my existing code should work just fine. So it is true that Java evolves quickly, but these days developers aren't stranded anymore.

    IMO it is to Sun's credit that they push the envelope of Java so much in such a short time. Without the aggressive release schedules, Java wouldn't have a chance. Keeping the platform evolving so quickly allows Java to stay on the leading edge. Look at the XML RPC stuff - this stuff was out there from the start of all this "web services" buzz, long before .NET was announced. Without the leadership of Sun, IBM, and the like to push the platform forward, it would simply die from stagnation.
  • I agree, that is certainly a conundrum.

    I was hoping that the next generation of IE would follow Mozilla's footsteps, and put JDK 1.3 in it, but alas there is no hope for that.

    It is quite disappointing to see such wonderful Java 2 features so useless in a browser-based app. Fortunately for all of us, there is much more to Java than browser-based. Sun's new Java WebStart (or whatever it is called) that provides the best of running Java from a browser (no setup/installation issues) with tht best of running from a JRE (quality JDK with full library support) seems quite promising for corporate and specialized app environments. But it is disappointing that simple applets will be all we can ever expect from a web page.
  • Well, maybe you can get 6 megs in 1.5 minutes, but most people can't. Many, many people can't (FWIW, I got it in about 2.5 minutes the other day:)

    People will/are downloading Real* only as long as the builtin Windows Media Player isn't pre-installed. Same with WinAmp.

    None of which really bothers me, personally, but that's how I'd explain the 'strum and drang' from the masses.

  • Ah, but Sun is NOT a monopoly, and the market forces can be assumed to correct any problems. That's the problem with being a monopoly. The rules are different.
    Personally I'd love to see Sun getting $25 per copy of Windows. Should speed up Linux on the Desktop quite a bit.
  • Your opinions seem to be rather disconnected with what I see in the real world. I talk with CxO-types nearly every day, and one thing that is a nearly constant theme right now is that they're *MAD* about Microsoft's attempt to force them into XP and a two-year upgrade cycle for both the OS and Office. I've spoken with one CEO and two CFOs in the last week that have decided to pass on Microsofts XP licensing "offer" to upgrade everything by October, because they did enough research to realize that the cost down the road *substantially* outwieghs the apprent short term "savings". Interestingly, these are mostly shops that had "little to no interest" in Linux previously, but are now seriously investigating how much of their server infrastructure can be moved to Linux, and how quickly!

    *Most* corporate app projects I know of are being written in Java (esp. J2EE). Good Java programmers are NOT having a hard time finding employment, even in what looks to become a serious downturn.

    Interestingly enough, it looks as though Microsoft itself may be the most powerful force in making the platform of the future Java on Linux. That would be a very good thing, indeed, as Java and Linux are quite complementary, and Java (despite what you read here from the GNU-only Java-bashers) really does finally deliver on what it promised five or six years ago. The really good news abou this is that almost everyone now will be using *real* JVMs (i.e., Sun's or IBM's) rather than the putrid excuse MS has been foisting off on people for years in an attempt to undermine the entire Java concept.

    To the skeptics: If you haven't looked seriously at Java in the past year or so, go back do your homework, paying particular attention to what J2EE, EJB, etc. have added to the entire Java world. I think you'll be impressed. (Of course Java isn't perfect - but it's the best thing out there that can do the job - best by a long, long, way. Oh, and it's really our only hope in containing .NET, so you better either get behind it or sign up now for those XP subscriptions for mandatory 2-year upgrades...)
  • From the article:
    In a separate move affecting Java, Microsoft is tightening security settings in its new Windows and Office programs that in some cases will also disable Java programs. Microsoft's new products will now screen out Java as a possible carrier of computer viruses in e-mail and, under high-security settings, in Web-browsing software. ... "We treated our own technology exactly the way we have treated Java," he said. The security settings are fully customizable by the user or by a computer-system administrator, he noted. "We made the default setting the highest possible and want the customer to be able to then make an informed choice," Culp said.

    Does this incude Active X? In pre-XP releases selecting the "high" internet security level still didn't turn off Active X, the user has to set a "custom" security level to disable it. I doubt that M$ would really do anything about Active X since all kinds of stuff breaks when you disable it but since M$ claims to be concerned about security ...
  • by MadAhab (40080) <slasher@@@ahab...com> on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @07:42AM (#77545) Homepage Journal
    As a sysadmin, I agree... because users installing software on personal computers inevitably fucks something up.

    But as a programmer, I have to say your assumption is wrong. I had a job where I needed to install stuff all the time for my own programming purposes, and wasn't permitted to. I had to scream my way up to VPs to get permission to install stuff. I HAD to, it was my job. And the lame-ass IT staff wouldn't do it, because it was "unsupported software". The funny thing was, I never, ever once called them for anything unless it was something they screwed up. So it cuts both ways.

    Programmers should fix their own machines. Period. For one thing, it gives them sympathy with users when it "doesn't work". For another, if they can't, they probably can't program well, either.

    Boss of nothin. Big deal.
    Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

  • Dude, settle down. If Java disappears, its functionality needs to be replaced by something. What do you think Microsoft would suggest? Probably ActiveX, .NET, ASP...
    --
  • ...now. See, yesterday I was trying to find the Microsoft Java API online to figure out WHY IN GOD(S)'S NAME I CAN'T USE SETCURSOR() IN IE. They had moved the page I had bookmarked. After wrestling with the MSDN Library "Help" for a while, I finally had to do a raw search for it. They're not even calling it a Java API anymore, it's all listed under Visual J++...probably so they can bury it all at once. I hate hate HATE their pathetic half-assed implementation...like moving the Point class up the inheritence heirarchy! What's up with that? Forcing everyone who uses standard Java to write their own personal Point class...,/rant>
    ------------------------
  • by throx (42621) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:51AM (#77548) Homepage
    Microsoft has been accused of an "embrace and extend" attack on Java for years and has even lost a lawsuit on those grounds. Now they have rolled over and played dead - not shipping Java with the OS anymore and requiring users to go out and download the JVM they want.

    Sun's got what they wanted and suddenly it doesn't look so good. Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.
  • ANd for the 99% of users without Cable/DSL? That 6 MB download is 40 minutes+. Yeah right.

    Luckily most OEMs etc will eventually install the Sun Java VM and plugin on all boxes they sell, and if not, I bet that many magazines will just stick it on their cover CDs anyway at some point or another.

  • Web sites using Java applets are lousy. Most of the time, Java is only used for useless bloat like animated buttons or customized menus. It needs a lot of memory and CPU for this crap.
    I'm using Opera on Linux, without Java support. And it's great. I really don't need a Java-enabled browser. Java is now old-fashionned, webmasters leaved it in favor of Flash. Flash achieves the same thing, but it's lightweight, less bug-prone and creating flash files doesn't require any programming knowledge.

    -- Pure FTP server [pureftpd.org] - Upgrade your FTP server to something simple and secure.
  • by WinDoze (52234) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @06:20AM (#77552)
    But will they also screen all your emails to make sure they don't contain any of that nasty GPL virus?

    Stop spreading FUD! That's GPL cancer , mister!
  • by levik (52444) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:29AM (#77560) Homepage
    To all of the people using Java out there, this announcement seems like the equivalent of "XP will no longer encorporate a web browser".

    Java right now is still a moving target with a new verison coming out every half a year or so, and I don't think that bundling a JVM with an OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing audience.

  • by levik (52444) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:53AM (#77561) Homepage
    Your arguments are all true, but do not really add up to the death of Java. What they add up to is the death of Java in the browser, which has arguably been a bad idea to begin with, and has probably become a worse idea once Flash came out. Other than playing web based games, java in the browser is just plain annoying. (I should mention here that I am a big fan of the Java language, and get paid to develop mostly in Java)

    Java used the client side applets to gain prominence, but that was mostly a gimmick. Where Java really comes into its own is on the server, where the developer can control the JVM version, and doesn't have to use Java 1.0 for compatibility's sake.

    Since server based Java never relied on the MS JVM, it remains unefective and just as viable as it ever was.

  • by javatips (66293) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:38AM (#77570) Homepage
    It's time for Sun to make a smart move.

    They can benefit from this situation and make Java (recent version like 1.3) more present on the desktop.

    Now that MS allows OEM to modify the Windows Setup with far less restriction than before, Sun can work with OEM (like Dell, Compact and others) to bundle the Java Plug-In in new PCs.
    Unfortunatly, I doubt that Sun will take this course of action. They are to much focus on the server to actually do this.
  • Simply play back all the complaints and comments about MS Smart Tags and substutute Ad Blocking software. Both modify the content of websites without the authors permission.
  • by jesser (77961) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @09:06AM (#77576) Homepage Journal
    M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP

    Java: cross-platform. Loading a Java applet from a web page doesn't require granting any privileges to the web page. A Java applet can draw in the space it's given, take keyboard input when it has focus, and open new windows, just like a web page can, but it can't do much else.

    ActiveX: Windows-only, and installing an ActiveX applet is equivalent security-wise to installing and running a native program, and then allowing the web page to interact with that program.

    ASP: server-side, so it doesn't even try to do the same thing that Java did.

    I guess that leaves us with .NET. Can .NET run a program such as an applet without giving that program full control over the user's system?
  • Not like it's that hard to download a JVM.

    Are you kidding? Even given the confidence and necessary user rights to install it, JRE 1.4 is a 12 meg download. That's not exactly attractive to the average modem user.

    For all its problems, Java gives me a decent way to put cross-platform interactive stuff on my site and have it Just Work straight away for the majority of users. There's no obvious alternative if XP takes that away.


    --
    This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
  • And they're removing Java, meaning that anyone distributing a Java app needs to distribute instructions on how to waste half an hour downloading the latest VM.

    FYI, if you try to download a web page which uses a Java applet you get a pop-up telling you you need Java and you can click on a button to automatically download the VM.

  • You are a moron. Do you think we care about people like you? Of course you're going to download the JVM. Unfortunately, web designers have to write pages for *gasp* average people! Guess what.. they use *gasp* 56k modems! More than that, like others have already said, they're reluctant to install software.

    Then *gasp* *don't* *use* *Java*. If average people can't use it, don't design with it. There is more than one way.
  • Look. There is no use fighting it. Microsoft will coerce users into upgrading to XP. They've done it before, and they will do it again. It will be a 3 pronged strategy. Office XP will only work on Windows XP, OEMs will be stronghanded into shipping XP, and newer devices will be unsupported on older versions of Windows. Bang - within 3-4 years, everyone will be in the subscription model running XP.

    Now, Microsoft harnesses the other thing they KNOW about the user - the thing used to kill netscape. The user does not change his default settings. Most users never change their browser home page. Most users never install any new software to work with their browser. Most users never delete the icons that ship on their first boot screen.

    BTW, netscape and AOL know this as well - that is why they change the default settings for plugins (read media players) when they install. Hardly any users will change it back.

    Remember, protocols on the web need to be broadly supported, or people will not use them. If even 25% of all users cannot access java without installing it themselves, java is dead.

    And Microsoft can always claim that they made it VERY easy for the user to install java themselves, and it will not change a thing. They could even make the install a one-click thing from their web site - and it would not change a thing except Microsoft's defensibility in court.

    Gates and Co. didn't achieve a 40% profit margin by being nice guys. They have a monopoly, and they know how to use it.
  • That works for now.

    In a subscription model Microsoft can decide to strongarm you at any time you are re-subscribing - like yearly, for example.
  • Your opinions seem to be rather disconnected with what I see in the real world. I talk with CxO-types nearly every day, and one thing that is a nearly constant theme right now is that they're *MAD* about Microsoft's attempt to force them into XP and a two-year upgrade cycle for both the OS and Office. I've spoken with one CEO and two CFOs in the last week that have decided to pass on Microsofts XP licensing "offer" to upgrade everything by October, because they did enough research to realize that the cost down the road *substantially* outwieghs the apprent short term "savings".

    You underestimate Microsoft. They have a 40% profit margin BECAUSE they are a monopoly that utilizes that power. Once they realize people are not switching over, subscription prices will come down. OEMs will get coerced more severely. The most important thing to Microsoft is not maximizing profit off the subscription based services right now - it is getting people into it in the first place. They will backpedal to get you subscribed. Because, once you are subscribed, they can heavy hand you on pricing and manipulate available software (like java) every single year.

    That is their dream. They may even resurrect java and ship it by default. However, that will not be the end, but the beginning of the end. The subscription model plays so perfectly into their manipulative hands that it is unreal. A chance to be coercive on a YEARLY basis without needing the OEMs is exactly what the monopolist wants.

    Don't forget they have enough money in the bank to give away Windows XP for the first year without flinching. Because the subscription model with paying subscribers is the long term goal.

    As to whether people will go head over heels for linux - I doubt it. Microsoft merely needs to kill java quickly enough and replace it with .NET to own the platform of computing across the web. They are already making .NET available on FreeBSD (through Microsoft) and linux (through MONO). Once everyone has a reasonable plugin for C# and java is still the half broken beast on anything except Windows, Microsoft will actually have a leg up.

    I use linux and Unices now, and I haven't used Windows for anything for years. But I don't see my grandmother considering anything else.

  • because of some MS 'warning message' on how (possibly) harmful java is to your computer

    I remember reading the lengthy legal boilerplate license that came with Java and remarking about the qualifications that Sun would not be held responsible and did not recommend that it should be used to control nuclear power plants, flying aircraft or medical life-support equipment.

    It was buried alongside the more typical disclaimers, etc.

    The funny thing was, that when MS was distributing Java (and not liking it one bit, as you might recall), they showcased that particular snippet from Sun's license. Maybe they figured it would scare off the Aunt Mabel users of the world from toying with the dangers of Java and unprotected sex, but I found it funny as hell.

  • Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means.
    Huh? That's obvious. It's 8086 assembly language for

    mov ax,4C00h
    int 21h

    which in turn is an MS-DOS call to terminate the current process, returning an exit code of zero.

    So what's your point?

  • If each OEM would bundle the latest stable JRE with their Windows-based PCs then this would be non-issue. It has been how long since Sun updated JDK 1.3.1? And just how different is it from JDK 1.3.0? All sun needs to do to make its JRE consumer friendly is make it transparent to the end user (ie no dos box popping up, it just quietly loads the Java app) and to make an updater utility that automatically updates to the newest JRE/JDK.

  • not shipping Java with the OS anymore and requiring users to go out and download the JVM they want.

    Sure, they will. They will get a message that says something like, "This page contains JAVA code that Microsoft no longer supports for security reasons. It may contain viruses and damage your computer. If you want to use it anyway, press yes." Right...

    Then how long do you think it will take them to break Sun's JVM again? The trick of making competitors look unstable is starting to tell on M$, as most people now know who is to blame. Those idiots keep doing the same things. What a waste.

  • Good point. I can see it now.

    A recently installed program will cause problems with .net services. Would you like to correct this? Y/N
  • Mozilla also ships without a JVM, and the first time you try to access a site that needs Java it'll tell you about that and ask if you want to download.
    But most of the people who use Mozilla aren't intimidated by the prospect of seeking out a JVM (indeed, most folk have to go looking for Mozilla itself rather than it being pre-installed with their O/S).

    IE, OTOH, shows up on most new PCs and that's all Joe Sixpack needs to worry about. He's unlikely to go get another browser if he already has one, and he's just as unlikely to bother with the download of a JVM (or even truly appreciate why he should).

    We could all fix this in no time, but most regular users will just see a message saying "Would you like to download potentially dangerous software to view this site's potentially dangerous content? Yes/No?" and click the No option.

  • bullshit, this is a big deal.

    The MS java vm (at least the 1.1 version) was in fact the best of the breed.. As a simple 1.1 based vm (admittedly without some key features such as RMI) it was the best, fastest, stablest VM out there bar none... (Sorry but its true)

    With 95%+ browser market share going to MS at the moment, this is basically just another option we effectively can't use on mainstream sites, thereby having to resort to *stuff that M$ approve of* (like flash). The biggest loser from all this in-fighting over java, is us the developers (oh, ok and a few users).

    Of course if sun hadn't sued M$, but more particularly if M$ hadn't been such arseholes about java in the first place then none of this would never have happened.

    One of the few really good things about java was its support in browsers all the way back to netscape 1.1 (at least the core 1.02 jdk). Now thats gone. arghhh!!!! Just when 1.1 support was starting to be universal.

    I supsected as much would happen when installing the early beta .Net SDK's on my windoze partition wasted java support in IE. Clearly MS have basically ported the entire J++ dev to C#. C# being very similar to Java, the only people that lose from this development are people trying to develop cross-platform apps.

    So this is actually a really nasty blow on the part of MS. Did Sun not see this coming? Arrghhhh!

    I'm really really sad to hear this news.
  • I am a Microsoft supporter (There goes my Karma) and I'm not a big fan of Java, but I think that this is a mistake.

    Just recently I started programming using .NET. I've mostly used VB.NET to develop both desktop and web applications. I think it is a great technology, but Microsoft needs to realize that it is going to take time for it to take hold. Discontinueing Java support this early will make more users mad than it will make users happy. The first time Johnny Computer User tries to play a Java game online and has to go download a 6 Meg JVM he is going to be pissed.

    I can't think of a good reason to take out Java unless it is to force sites to start using .NET instead of Java, and I'm not sure most Webmasters are ready to do this.


  • Look at it this way: we finally are freed from those annoying pop-up windows!

    Dude, we're not even talking about JavaScript. Go read something besides slashdot, and get an education.
  • Then you must have a really short memory, or be very young. Because that was what all websites were saying back before IE became popular.
  • For a company that was just declared a monopoly, MS isn't trying very hard to clean up their reputation. Do you think this'll come up in court?

    This is an important point -- MS has been behaving recently like they really don't believe that there's going to be another trial, whereas that is exactly what the Appeals court has ordered: a new evidentiary hearing to determine remedies. The ruling explicitly stated that in a fast moving industry like this one, new evidence should be considered to see how circumstances have changed, to construct a remedy that actually solves the problem.

    On the positive side for them is the new set of rules for what OEMs can change on systems. (Which isn't that much.) On the negative side, we have this, the problems with Kodak (can't find a link right now), their fight with AOL, and of course their much-discussed attempt to monopolize web services through .NET. Regarding this last one in particular, a new round of discovery on Microsoft internal documents could be particularly damning, since so far most of what we have to go on is rumors and leaks.

    Keep an eye on the antitrust case; MS may have seriously mis-played their hand.

  • by harvardian (140312) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @09:07AM (#77628)
    Look, I dislike MS as much as the average person, but I think Real SUCKS. It takes over your damn computer and is way too bulky. I'm sorry, but for people running Windows Media is just a higher quality solution, despite what I would wish.

    And the reason we're worried is that dotNET will enable intranets using Microsoft products (a very large number) more than ever before. JSP is a thing of the past. PHP will continue to be used by houses that don't rely on MS technologies, but for those who do, ASP.NET is by far the way to go.

    I just migrated to ASP.NET last night on a pre-public server for the hell of it. I learned in the process the language's potential. Before, ASP was very limited (CDONTS, woo) and PHP + nix was vastly more powerful. And while PHP is more flexible (anything nix is more flexible than an MS product), at least MS has caught up in functionality. And that's all that most companies will have been waiting for.

    From the average user POV, IE7 will most probably be the only browser many developers will target, since NS is out the door and not updating now. If you're writing a webpage for a user running IE7, would you rather write it in ASP.NET, JSP, or PHP? The answer is ASP.NET because you will get functionality and predictability.

    This actually bodes poorly for people running nix houses. nix + Oracle or mySQL + PHP is an excellent solution nowadays. But what happens when in order to interface with that backend all your users will be using IE7? There will be pressure to migrate.

  • But by design CSS degrades in a friendly way for old browsers, so I see see the content just fine, even if the layout might be a little off (and I care not one jot about layout)
  • Groupware: Does that count as three?
  • it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads.
    You mean people will lose the ads? This should go on top of all their own publicity. WinXP - Lose those freaking annoying ads...

    Ads are an annoyance, not a feature (and there a so few java(script) applets that are actually useful (name 3), that this should definitely be considered a feature.

    Gaz, happily surfing without ads [junkbuster.com], java or javascript since 1997 (posted with Netscape 3). Missing nothing that appeals to anyone over 12.

  • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @07:24AM (#77632) Homepage Journal
    which is why ad-blocking software has yet to be legally challenged
    Does anyone seriously believe that such a challenge would win, anywhere in the world? On what grounds could ad blocking possibly be declared unlawful?
  • A website could say that their copyrighted content requires application of a "process" (language from the DMCA) to access the work. The process would be the interpretation and rendering of a work. They could say that only a web browser which fits their criteria (no ad-blocking, etc), is authorized to access the content. Heck they could ban any browsers on a non-Microsoft platform if they wanted to. Just put it in the terms of service. That mgiht not even be necessary - nothing on DVDs mentions any restrictions on what may legally be used to view them.

    I know the above is a bogus argument, but it would likely work. If you doubt that, realize that apparently the FBI feels they can charge a Russian who sold Russian software on a Russian website with an offense in Santa Clara California, so anything goes, apparently (if you are the goverment/corporations).

  • I was going to write a well-reasoned response to this, but decided I'd just selectively quote, and the total absurdity of the post would show through. It's just more amusing that way.

    Hardly anything java works nowdays in Microsoft's VM.

    Everyone knows that Microsoft's language additions to Java were good.

    I rest my case.
  • Try some Penguin Mints, they'll help with that.

    He was actually the one criticizing the MS VM. I, on the other hand, have been arguing for its inclusion-- I prefer the much smaller memory footprint and increased speed in consumer apps that it has over the bloated, server-oriented Sun VM. If you're still concerned that preferring an MS product over a Sun one makes me anti-MS, you'll have to enlighten me.
  • by startled (144833) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @11:12PM (#77636)
    Ah, I'm starting to understand your position now. :) I still disagree completely with your first statement-- I use Java programs on a regular basis that run on 1.1. Stock stuff, game applets, homestead.com, etc.. MS's VM still kicks enough ass to support. Do I wish they'd been able to make a 1.2VM? Sure, if they had removed all of the WFC bullshit. Do I think they would have ever done that? Hell, no.

    Here I'm talking about the new language features Microsoft added to Java back in 97/98. These are delegates, multicast delegates and J/Direct. These WERE good LANGUAGE EXTENSIONS for Java.

    Mmmmmm, J/Direct. Unfortunately, it's really not very cross-platform. Now, sure, you're going to be calling into native code, so your app won't be "write once, run anywhere" regardless. But at least if I use RNI (Sun's is RNI, right, not JNI? Not that it matters.), I don't have to modify my Java for the Linux version. Still, I will admit to a bit of a love affair with J/Direct. Or at least a lack of hate affair, after dealing with those other ridiculous kludges.

    Like any other plugin (e.g. flash), IE will prompt you to download the VM if you do happen to find a site that still uses Java.

    A 10 meg inclusion with a 1 gig install is no big deal. Over a 56K modem, it's enough of a deterrent that major commercial sites won't take the risk of losing a potential viewer.

    The real root of this issue isn't theoretical for me. I'm working on a very large Java app. I want it to be cross-platform, and it needs to have minimal barrier to use-- that means, in most cases, no VM download. So regardless of what court cases went on, or whose extensions were easier to use, etc. etc., one thing is very obvious with this announcement: Microsoft just made my job a whole lot harder. They didn't have to do it, and they really pissed me off.
  • by startled (144833) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @09:16AM (#77637)
    The reason there's no JVM included with Windows XP is due to terms of a settlement between Microsoft and Sun Microsystems. Basically, Sun told them not to do it.

    This is horseshit flamebait, and you know it (and I know it, and I'm responding-- sigh). As pretty much everyone here knows, MS first attempted to kill Java by adding a lot of proprietary, Windows-only extensions. They hoped that by turning it into a platform-specific language, it would either become useless, or another Windows-only option. Sun sued MS, telling them to cut that shit out. They won, but MS can continue to distribute the VM for another 7 years or so. Additionally, they can bundle other VMs with their OS.

    Now that MS's first attempt to kill Java has failed, they're coming in with another two-pronged attack. They're introducing C#, which is pitched to be just like Java, only easier, better, faster, and makes toast. And they're removing Java, meaning that anyone distributing a Java app needs to distribute instructions on how to waste half an hour downloading the latest VM.

    MS even admits it's for "business reasons", which is the last resort after finding absolutely no way to say this is good for the consumer. If they want to bundle a Java VM with their OS, they have many options.
  • You make a good point. Another point to consider is that many of the posters here are essentially advocating forcing Microsoft to implement another company's product. That is a bad trend to get started, even if it is with Microsoft. Instances in which a company is required to include support for another company's products should be rare and used only under the most extreme circumstances, and to be honest, I can't think of many such instances.

    Let the other companies develop their own products, their own plug-ins, and their own marketing. A few other people have mentioned Flash and Quicktime, both of which do just fine in the current web environment. There's no reason that a webmaster can't include a little link that says, "To view this page properly, you must install Sun's Java engine. Click here to download it." I see plenty of sites doing just that with a half-dozen other major plug-ins.

  • The Internet Explorer JVM applet plugin is an ActiveX control.

    --

  • by _xeno_ (155264) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @06:30AM (#77651) Homepage Journal
    It isn't, is it?

    OK, I'll download the latest JVM, starting at the Java webpage [sun.com]. I have to go though five pages to get to the final Download page, and that's via a menu on the left. However, both mainstream browsers (IE and Netscape) support specifying the download location, although IE supports automatically downloading and installing the ActiveX control that is the IE plugin.

    The JRE itself (JUST the JVM and associated libraries) comes in at 5,364,696 bytes for the Windows platform, on a 56K modem, an average user should be able to get about 3KB/s download speed. At that speed, it will take about a half-hour to download the runtime. (Specifically, 1746.32 seconds, or about 29 minutes, 6 seconds.)

    At this point, most users would say "screw this" and just abandon the page requiring the applet.

    --

  • Not like it's that hard to download Netscape either, but that didn't stop millions from using IE just because it was there. The point here is that if it's not pre-installed, most of the unwashed computing masses won't use it.
  • I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java,

    From the article:
    Without this step, "any Web page that contains Java applications will not run -- it will be a dead page," said Jan Vitek, a professor of computer science at Purdue University,

    A "dead page" tells me that it isn't popping up a warning, but giving you like a 404....
    UGH!

    --
  • That's one solution.

    Another is to append the JAR to the end of a BMP, since windows can use a BMP as an icon, and ZIP (and thus JAR) files are end-based.

    See this RFE [sun.com] for a discussion on the issue.

    But I don't want workarounds. I want to distribute a single executable JAR that shows up as a custom icon in windows/solaris/linux/mac.

    When you install the JRE, it should "give" windows the ability to pull an icon from a JAR.

    wishus
    ---
  • WebSeart and JNLP (Java Network Launch Protocol) allow you to run remote applications inside a sandbox, similar to the applet sandbox. JNLP is a really nice protocol, and can do things like only download parts of the application when they're needed and always make sure it is running the latest version.

    WebStart lets you run JNLP from a web page.

    Neither has any relevance to what I'm talking about.

    wishus
    ---
  • Read the documentation again. Web start is a download manager for java apps. It WILL put an icon on your desktop for you. It can also load java apps from a web page.

    You read it again. Here's a relevant bit from the FAQ [sun.com].

    JavaTM Web Start will always launch the application from the cache, if possible, and it will simultaneously perform a background check with the server for updates. If updates are available, then it will notify the user, and launch the update versions the next time. This approach ensures fast startup time in the common case where there is no update, and also makes sure that an application can be launched offline.

    In a corporate intranet environment, this is great because you don't have to go around updating a thousand computers. It's great in a lot of other places, too. But sometimes, I want to use a certain version of an application - not always the latest. Or maybe I don't want the overhead of checking for updates. Or maybe a thousand other things.

    WebStart is not a direct solution to the problem. It is a different technology that is closely related to Java application technology. I think WebStart is great, but I want a direct solution to the problem - not a different way of doing things pretending to be a solution.

    And yes, WebStart does use JNLP. Read the documentation again.

    wishus
    ---

  • by wishus (174405) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @07:06AM (#77666) Journal
    Sun is doing quite well making the JRE user friendly. As of now, you can double-click on an executable JAR and it will run - no DOS window - with javaw.

    What they need to do is find a way to associate an icon with a JAR file in a way that windows explorer and the desktop will recognize it and display that icon instead of the generic executable JAR icon. It's reasonable to assume they will get no help from Microsoft to this end.

    Another problem with desktop Java on windows is associated file types. Without using some sort of installer, I don't know of a way to tell windows that every time I double-click on a file with a .txt, .html, or .java extension, I want it to open in my Java text editor, instead of notepad.exe.

    The problem with OEMs packaging the JRE is that it would make Microsoft mad. Antitrust lawsuits or no, Microsoft would make it hard on that OEM, if it's not already forbidden by the MS licensing. (Wasn't there a slashdot story about MS supposedly letting up on this, but not really?).

    Another possible problem - and I don't know how big a deal it is - but Compaq, Dell, and whoever else probably sell NT servers. Why "help out" Sun installing JREs on their PCs when Sun competes with their server business?

    wishus
    ---

  • The end result of this is that many banner ad services will switch to Microsoft, rather than just getting angry.

    Does this mean that they will stop using Java? That's great, because unless I download the MS plugin then I won't be able to see their ads. The ignorant masses will then receive all the ads while the rest of us blissfully enjoy a web experience free of commercial harassment. Or is this too pie-in-the-sky?

  • it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads

    Huh? Name one site with a Java based ad. Go ahead, post a link. You can't, because there aren't any. No rational company would have a Java-based ad, because Java is too unstable in too many browser versions.

    Now, there are quite a number of Flash-based ads, which is what you might be thinking of, which is unrelated to Java.


    --

  • Compare Java to Python. Both are interpreted and cross-platform but Python is 10 times faster.

    Guido van Rossum disagrees [python.org]. Perhaps you should correct him.

    nor am I saying the best architecture included that various Motorola chipsets that plagued the Macintosh over the years

    I programmed 68K assembly for about 2 years and x86 for about 3 and I would say that when the 68000 was introduced it was the finest microprocessor architecture within realistic grasp (in terms of cost) available to the mass market.

  • Another problem with desktop Java on windows is associated file types. Without using some sort of installer, I don't know of a way to tell windows that every time I double-click on a file with a .txt, .html, or .java extension, I want it to open in my Java text editor, instead of notepad.exe.

    You can simply go into the "file types" information and change that, y'know. Just find the file type, and either change the "Open" command or make a "Open With" command.

    If you need help in figuring this out, you can e-mail me at username "dagondge" on the nycap.rr.com server.
  • I don't think that bundling a JVM with an OS would have been beneficial to the language's development, as it would force developers to only use the XP version for fear of losing audience

    Right, now we've lost the audience right up front, no fear involved.

    Tally ho!
  • You mean people will lose the ads? This should go on top of all their own publicity. WinXP - Lose those freaking annoying ads...
    Ads are an annoyance, not a feature (and there a so few java(script) applets that are actually useful (name 3), that this should definitely be considered a feature.


    HUH? 99.9% of all annoying ads on the web are done with Macromedia Flash. ::spit::
  • Pro, [as you stated] not nailing the thing down.

    Con, the download is large and Joe Sixpack won't have much of a clue where to get it or how to install it. Possibly addressed by sites putting a [Get Java Here] button on their pages.

    Really, though, I've pretty much by this time seen enough to advise anyone against buying WinXP. It seems like buying a Hunting Dog named "Tripod". 95/98/2000 pretty much do all that Windows users need. The ultimate question is when would Microsoft refuse to offer new copies of anything other than WinXP for sale, thus binding OEMs to ship new PCs with it. There's still a number of OEM's shipping new PCs with 98. We just bought a large number of new Dells (at work, don't flame me over it, not my choice) with Win98.

    --
    All your .sig are belong to us!

  • Could all the changes in WinXP really amount to Microsofts own albatross, i.e. their OS/2?

    If it's just to different for IT shops, let alone large corporate customers to switch to their new and improved architecture and market plan, then it'll be a very slow seller.

    For consumers, who surf the web, this would be a reason to not buy a WinXP box. Why should they spend the bucks and run into non-functioning page after page?

    It's hard enough to imagine Amazon, Yahoo, CNN, eBay and dozens of large sites regearing their entire web architecture just to accomodate this change in direction from Redmond. I suspect there'll be an about-face on this, too.

    --
    All your .sig are belong to us!

  • There's a FPS programmed in Java being demoed by Sun at Quakecon in a few days. I guess they are having some form of tournament to win a Cobalt Cube or something to that effect. Of course, this is funded by Sun so it isn't really showing that Java will be excepted as a client-side language, but it'll be interesting to see what people think of the demo.
  • by C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:32AM (#77712) Journal
    Mozilla also ships without a JVM, and the first time you try to access a site that needs Java it'll tell you about that and ask if you want to download.

    M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have, I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java, or this can backfire on them when DOJ adds this to the list of evidence on the proccess.

    --
  • A couple of comments....

    .net won't be released at the same time as XP, so they are at the same disadvantage with respect to pre-installation. And you can bet that the download for a .net plugin will be more than the JRE plugin.

    Most people *will* accept the download, however sites that use Applets need to be persuaded to utilize the Java plug-in, rather than relying on the browser's default implementation. Users are accustomed to downloading plugins (see Shockwave, CometCursor, and other such garbage). Of course, web page developers will have to be persuaded to use the object/embed tags, rather than the applet tag. This will be an uphill battle as IE requires the use of the Object tag, Netscape requires Embed, and good luck on getting users to remember the proper use of both [sun.com].

    Commercial applications (non-applets) written in Java are distributed with a self-installing JVM. As more and more applications are developed using Java, the pre-installation of a JVM will become less of an issue. I doubt that many people are going to distribute their applications for public consumption as a single JAR file. The average user (hell, MOST users) don't know how to invoke them.

    Most importantly, the viability of Java as a platform does not rest on whether it is adopted by the home consumer (and that is who we are talking about here). It does not rest of whether it is used in the typical web page. Java's viability and future rests on the server-side, not the client-side. MS's attempt to preclude Java from the default client will have ZERO effect on Java.


    I have no .sig and I must scream.
  • From the article:
    "After Windows XP is launched in October, users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work."
  • by fscking_coward_2001 (236799) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:35AM (#77717)

    The point is not whether it is hard to download a JVM. The point is that Java support won't be available without an extra step. This means that MS-sponsored technologies will be the default.

    The article quotes someone who points out that if businesses want broad visiblity to their web sites, they might want to think about dropping Java in favor of .NET. That's the real impact here.

    Think about what's happening to Real Networks, Kodak, and others who are seeing MS put their own technologies as "integral" parts of Windows to replace the products these companies are selling.

  • M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have, I just hope they set a warning that you need a plugin to run Java, or this can backfire on them when DOJ adds this to the list of evidence on the proccess.

    1. Sun sued Microsoft into doing this... They settled allowing MS to keep thier implementation of Java 1.1 for up to seven years.
    2. ASP is a server side technology that has been duplicated on Apache.
    3. Read the article, "After Windows XP is launched in October, users will be directed to download a plug-in from Microsoft's Web site (www.microsoft.com) to make Java-based programs work. "
    4. ActiveX is dead for web UI's among MS developers, and dotNET isn't likely.
  • At least, according to the Boy Wonder [anandtech.com]. Check out their tests here [anandtech.com].

    Still beta, I know, but startling nonetheless.

  • Apparently, Microsoft execs have not surfed the web recent; it's hard to find a mainstream site which at some point doesn't use Java-based ads. I wonder if this move may entice some web advertizers to take issue with MS for removing a key component for viewing their ads.

    A couple points:

    1) Microsoft Execs know that what they are saying is a crock of crap. They know that no one in their right mind believes them, but lying is preferable to saying "HAHAHAHA, we shall crush Java and no one can stop us!" because that could come back to bite them in court.
    2) You're absolutely right, many banner ad services are gonna be going crazy over this, but when Microsoft will inevitably refuse to back down, I bet many of them will consider switching to VBScript, or whatever the hell proprietary language Microsoft wants them to use rather than losing over half their customers (I'm sure over half of PC users will either be too stupid or lazy to download Java). The end result of this is that many banner ad services will switch to Microsoft, rather than just getting angry.

    Or I could just be paranoid, who knows.

  • by mlamb (303474) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:39AM (#77750)
    Tightening Java security
    In a separate move affecting Java, Microsoft is tightening security settings in its new Windows and Office programs that in some cases will also disable Java programs. Microsoft's new products will now screen out Java as a possible carrier of computer viruses in e-mail and, under high-security settings, in Web-browsing software. This move, first signaled in a software "security patch" distributed last year, is part of a broader effort by Microsoft to help stamp out the spread of computer viruses.


    Finally, Microsoft is doing something to combat those horrible java-based email viruses! But will they also screen all your emails to make sure they don't contain any of that nasty GPL virus?
  • by MSBob (307239) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @06:43AM (#77755)
    M$ is probably pushing things to ActiveX, .NET, ASP or any other proprietary crap they have

    I doubt you have a clue on what you're talking about. ActiveX is just as proprietary (or as open) as applets. Both are plugin technologies that are not a part of the w3c spec.

    .NET and ASP have absofuckinglutely nothing to do with browsers. They are server side technologies. Again if .NET and ASP are proprietary crap so is EJB and JSP. Man you really need to get a clue.

    How did this get +5 insightful?

  • Please, don't speak about technologies that you know nothing of. Your comments about why .NET won't make it are not only innacurate, but entirely misleading.

    1. Too Late.
    I see. So within the next 6 months the entire world will be using some development language that is so spectacular that they will never choose to switch to .NET Gee, I hope nobody else is looking at creating any new development technologies cause obviously they will all be "too late"

    2. Website Requires IE7???
    No, .NET is specifically built to support downlevel browsers and competitors browsers. The server-side controls implemented in ASP.NET automatically generate appropriate client-side code for the targetted browser (including Netscape 4, 6, IE 4, IE 5, and IE6).

    .NET does not require XP at all. Not to develop, not to deploy, not at all.

    3. Java supports tons of platforms and works today for most browsers

    See 2. .NET does not require a new platform. It works on existing platforms.

    4. Plug-Ins aren't foreign
    What does this have to do with why .NET won't make it?

  • by Ayende Rahien (309542) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:38AM (#77758)
    The JVM that IE has isn't exactly the best of breed. (Although I understand that it used to be), so making the users get it on their own is not a devestating blow to Java.
    Not to mention that Java's promise as a desktop application language have flopped big time.
    Java is now a server-centric language, applets are at a distant second place. I can't recall the last time I've seen a Java applet, for that matter, except for maybe that annoying "hit the monkey" ads, and I won't miss those.

    Beside, considerring how trendy web developers are, *what is the big deal*?
    Already, if you use many things, you require your user to download a plug-in to do it. And in many cases, this can be fully automated process.
    In any case, this is not very threatening to Java.

    --
    Two witches watched two watches.
  • by SilentChris (452960) on Wednesday July 18, 2001 @05:49AM (#77802) Homepage
    1.5 minutes. That's how long it took me to download the Java VM in Windows XP. Internet Explorer automatically pops up a windows the first page you go to with Java, you click OK, and the page runs. No restarting the computer or the browser. 6 megs total for the VM.

    Explain to me again why we're worried? Windows XP also doesn't have support for RealVideo (Windows never has) so that involved me downloading a 5 minute download from Real. The Java download was completely and utterly automatic (similar to downloading Shockwave for Windows).

    This is another fine example of people making mountains out of Microsoft molehills.

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.

Working...