Drew Wutka
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Thu Apr 3 17:43:49 CST 2003
Comments on your comments (I'll snip my originals for space considerations) >The "top secret, imminently to-be-released" version of Windows >(code-name: Longhorn) is said to include a radically new file system >based on SQL server. MS has waffled on this point, but it's basically >replacing the "traditional" filesystem with a database. Academically, >it sounds interesting, but I think in practice it is going to be a >whopper of a resource hog. Tech pundits say it will mean that any old >software will simply not work on the new platform. No details on how >close it is to final, or if and when it will be released, but it's in >the pipeline. >Having said that, I have to disagree with your prognistication. I think >it was William who said earlier that Office is the cash cow for MS. I >would tend to agree with that. I also think that including any major >office app in the OS is unrealistic. MS already has a stranglehold on >the market just by their de facto presence. Bundling the apps in the OS >would shoot themselves in the foot, unless they were castrated versions >of such apps (think: less features than Works). As far as your list of >"already included apps" is concerned, none of those can really be >considered "major" apps. OE is severly limited in its featureset, >Notepad is "edit" for Windows, Wordpad is a proof-of-conept that you can >write an app entirely using MFC if you really wanted to (the dev team >just decided to throw it in there), and VBScript is no substitute for a >"rich development language" (neither is JavaScript for that matter). If >MS was going to include a database app along these lines to be bundled .with the OS, I sure as heck wouldn't want to use it for real >development. Actually, what you say in the first paragraph is exactly what I was predicting, and also exactly why I think Office, at least a portion of it, will be incorporated into the OS. Here's why. First of all, I don't think Office is MS's real cash cow. They really make a killing on Server products, especially on the licensing of those products. With Office, they are charging X amount of dollars for each package. With a server side product, they charge X amount of dollars for the package (which is usually higher then Office prices...except maybe developer edition), then they tack on X amount of dollars for licenses. Those licenses are more then likely MS's biggest cash cow. However, back to the Office Incorporation. Let's think about a 'futuristic' OS system, such as the SQL server based file system that you mentioned. Software built for the current generation OS is going to be completely imcompatible. (This is going to be a slight reverse, because with most OS 'upgrades', little 'older' software is unrunnable in the new OS, but most software built for the new OS is unrunnable in the previous OS. If the OS is drastically changed, all software is going to be incompatible, going backwards or forwards.). Thus, Microsoft would be forcing their customers to buy a completely new Office Suite....AND (more importantly), telling them that a straight convert is going to be pretty difficult. It makes more sense to tack more bucks onto the OS itself, include the Office suite, and then sell specialty add ins, like a developer's edition. >Drew, you also are a VB-turned-sometimes-Access developer. Most people >on this list have gone the other way. There's a learning curve no >matter which way you go on this path. Some are better at traveling it >than others, but that's true for learning any new development >environment. Not to mention the fact you _like_ unbound forms. :) >(Please no holy wars this week, it was just a JOKE.) Not true. I am an ACCESS developer turned VB/ASP. I started in Access, and still use Access, however, I LATER got into VB. It just so happened that a lot of what I was 'tasked' to develop were FAR easier in VB, so I tended to use VB more often then Access once I got into VB. I still make strictly Access stuff. Also, I personally think going Access to VB IS the best way to go. Why? Because in Access you get to learn two spectrums, database theory/practice, AND VB(A) coding. Moving to VB from Access, you are really just faced with learning a new GUI (and object model), much like going from Access 97 to Excel 97. Going from VB to Access, you may have the coding under your belt, but you now have not only the new 'environment', but also all of the tricks of the trade with working in a database. No point in going into the whole bound/unbound thing, obviously. >> That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. >I won't hold it against you :) Thanks...I'm glad you won't! <grin> Seth -- Seth Galitzer sgsax at ksu.edu Computing Specialist http://puma.agron.ksu.edu/~sgsax Dept. of Plant Pathology Kansas State University _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com