I don't know huge amounts about Corel's attempt to rewrite their entire office suite in Java, except that it was scrapped in the end because it was too slow.. (Java as a progressive language seems determined to be just beyond what the hardware can support, a bit too leading edge, with not enough time spent making it work on today's hardware.. but I love java, it's really well thought out, I think C# is a petty attempt to try and spread more confusion and rain on other people's parade).

As a programmer I know that the operating system "platform" is a foundation that grows out of contemporary capabilities and as each feature becomes neccesary and ubiquitious (disk access, network access, inter component communication, etc) it is wrapped into that platform. The people leading the effort at Corel must have confronted and been overwhelmed by these potentially significant technologies that are part of an application server (since I believe all data access was over the network for Corel Office for Java). As have researchers in many institutions and efforts not small enough to dominate the public. Years later, Microsoft makes their announcement.. but the specification will always be out of date.

Project Oxygen, being developed at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science, is almost exactly what you described. Here are some references for those interested:

http://www.lcs.mit.edu/anniv/press/oxygen040799

http://www.oxygen.lcs.mit.edu/

http://architecture.mit....%20%20August%201999.htm

Take a look on new idea other way:
There is a lot of company who sell ready packaged products.
They are compete with Microsoft.
Microsoft does't love loosing money.
Microsoft love innovations which give money to Microsoft.
Microsoft will create subscription based software services.
Users dislike this idea becouse it unusual, not tested and make additional troubles like privacy and avaibility (will Microsoft provide 100Mb two-way connection in Oceania or Bagamas ??)
Microsoft need to tell users why it make reason to switch.
They are telling that it will cost less.
Tell me now what is a reason why Microsoft will make priced lower ?
More users ?? (nope - everybody who need Office or anything else already have it)

wasn't this Oracle's idea first, with their NC ?

Everybody reliant on one central source (in this case the ROOT.NET or Microsoft). I admit, I haven't read any of the paperwork, but the rough idea I'm getting from these articles just doesn't sit well with me and I can't see how (even with reading the paperwork) this could be morphed or changed into something I'd like. I personally like the concept of going to the store, buying the software, upgrading, etc., etc. But all in all, it surprises me that Microsoft (an obvious band of conservatives) would be involved in something so far left.

-Mike
Bush for President

It sounds to me like my privacy is gonna go right out the f'n window...

Again I say, you need to try something new, and THINK.

Do you even have a clue what .net is?

i agree everyone's gettin all pissed off about this, but we don't know enuf about it, all we have is BetaNew's assumptions and sutff like that, so...

To me, this is an end to most startups, especially some startups portal like one of those dotcoms in Malaysia. Microsoft has in the past creates aggresive competition in the market, but Microsoft can take it back anything that they had given. For example, they can now highly integrate their msn.net to their next version of windows or internet explorer thereby killing all portals that are not very innovative. And don't forget, MS killed Netscape because they integrate it with Windows and ofcouse, together with an even more-powerful-than-netscape Internet Exporer. Afterall, a pioneer may not win forever, just like the famouse saying, "If you can't be the first, be the best".

So, back to the main topic. With microsoft.net and msn.net, that means MS has it all, what it takes to "almost-dominate" the Internet, by providing all kinds of quality services to the consumers, like online banking, instant messaging, e-mail, b2b (bcentral.com), our online file storage, news, etc etc etc... So, what's left to their competitors? This kind of "Iternet-domination" idea is not new, just look at Sun's JINI, which is part of the initiative to integrates everything, from your handphone to your TV, to you PDAs, to your handphones using WAP and more. So, I hereby announced to entrepreneurs, or netpreneurs, who wish to open a web portal to compete with MS, i say, forget the hell of it, cause you don't have Windows. MS is trying to make "Windows everywhere" a reality. Some says PC is obsolute, and that MS will lose all their monopoly soon. Is it so? If yes, please, please think again. MS is now moving from PC to the Internet, to your PDAs, to your handphones, to your homes, to your TVs, and soon, to your head or insde your body using some kind of "bio-technology" in order to dominate the world. (sorry if this bothers you, i don't mean it.)

And please, before you're trying to flamed me with arguements, listen to this, I'm not saying this is bad, infact, i was looking ahead to all this, don't know whether I can see it though, but, and this is a big but, by the time Microsoft succeds, we all will be Microsoft's employees, not other standalone or what I called the smaller companies can survive alone or by partnering with only 1 or 2 companies. Forget about dot-coms, forget about innovation, forget about B2B, forget about WAP, forget about Internet technologies, cause we can leave it all to Microsoft. Oh, by the way, if you're a smart entrepreneur who are even more innovative and aggressive than Bill Gates, think, will you defeat Microsoft? Where Microsoft can rely on almost-can-monopoly OS where you have nothing more than an idea. Sorry, I'm so sorry, accept the fact, cause the fact is the fact and is no more, no less.

of course, what will tie this all together is
when the power companies use those
power lines for hi-speed "power .net"
access.... (smart devices)

...that most people will be using broadband by the time the system is implemented. Three separate research reports were done (Juppiter, Forrest, one other), the results of which can be found an one of the Industry Standards from May I think, showing that well over 50% of the population will probably not bother with broadband for over ten years. Now, I can't be too sure about how reliable these reports are, but its worth considering if nothing else. Now that I have a high-speed connection I can't imagine anything else, personally.

The other critical part is, will the average computer user give a damn? Will companies adopt it for their inter-office software? Or is it something that just sounds cool to a limited group of people? I don't know.

basically, it's re-inventing the way we buy software.

Software piracy will be greatly reduced after a system like this is emplemented.

Of course piracy will be reduced if you don't own anything. But who wants that?

We'll see what happens. What people forget frequently in these times is that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that others will want to use it or take part. No one really went for VCRs combined with TV sets, for instance. Or those pads where you could use a pen and draw on your computer (well, maybe Palms now...). We're not talking about combinations necessarily, but this is a pretty big advance that might not go over well with the all-important consumer.

Plus, do people really like dealing with more and more monthly bills?

I have one of those pads, it's really nice, and I know quite a few people who have them too. It's not for everyday personal use, it's for the artists, and graphic designers out there.

The great part about all this is data sharing. I'm so sick of having to enter a username and password and all that crap on so many web sites, its very redundant. The direction MS is going, in the near future I'd be a recognized person everywhere I go. Besides, I'm much more in favor of subscription based services than blowing tons of money at once on something that I may not use 3 months down the road.

Exciting stuff.

do you really want EVERYONE knowing what you eat for breakfast? When you take a crap? Think about your privacy and that of others as well.
You may just reconsider...

I don't know what the heck put some BS like that in your head, but my God, you need to go try somethng new and THINK.

After reading this I think it is a decent Idea, but I think that it should be broken down more. For instance. I have office 97, have used 2000, and prefer 97... why should I be forced to upgrade to a product that I wont use... I shouldnt.

How is this going to work for people that are always re-building machines, or reinstalling software? The example here showed that you would get a new computer with a free year of this certain program, then you would have to pay for it. So if I go out and build a computer again, and again, each time will I have to subscribe for that computer, or is it on a personal basis, so that you can use the service on any computer you own. Current EULAs have it stated that the product can be used on one computer and one computer only. I have office installed on most of my computers at work and home. This doesnt mean that I use them simultaneously, but they are there.

Now I havent read everything there is about this yet, and I am sure alot of these things will be worked out with time... but I dont like it on bit.. no sir :)

NamantH

Just wanted to drop a quick line to fill in a couple of quick reminders to those people who might be reading my posts wondering why I'm so hyped on this announcement.

1. NC's failed because of two major things
- Larry Ellison wanted your data physically on his servers
- NC's could not cache or store information only locally because they had no local storage... In other words, they were to be the dumb terminal of the 21st century. No wonder they failed.

This is not the same animal

2. I'm not worried about where my data will be stored or whose services I'll subscribe to, which is why I'm basically ignoring all the "application subscription" and "big brother" crap being posted here. Yes, it's crap.

Why? Because with an open communication standard on the network, applications can and will be provided by _many_ vendors, and data stores will be provided by a good selection of vendors, and in both cases you will be able to choose, as the consumer, how you pay for these services: subscription or outright purchase, and where your code and data lies: locally hosted, at your business, at your ISP, at the vendor, etc.

Start thinking of how this will give you control and options as a user. Start thinking of how you can develop and provide new applications and services as a professional in this industry. The rest will sort itself out in the wash.

is going to be convenient, but i don't want to pay for it
keep it free

It's spelled McAfee, not "McCaffey"

There is more than a page of info here, yet I couldn't understand a word of it. Maybe I should read it again in the afternoon.

2 words of warning - Big Brother.
Whitepapers and webcasts aside - I for one don't and won't trust Microsoft or many other corporations for that matter to store my personal information on their servers. Anyone who believes that the privacy of such information is safe from their prying eyes must live in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Remember that little program in office that monitored your activities?
Convenience ? No - I don't think so, well not on those terms anyway.
The idea is fundamentally sound but at the end of the day (I avoid cliches like the plague normally) It's just the latest idea that Microsoft and their "partners" have had to guarantee they can get as much money as possible out of as many people as possible.
Just like politicians, they will say whatever you want to hear in as many 'whitepapers' as you will read but the bottom line has to be...
Money Money Money Lies sub-standard products producing Money covered up with Lies.

Once again, I have to remind people that in _no place_ in the whitepapers or the webcasts do Microsoft state that your data will be stored on servers over which Microsoft has physical control. They use only phrases such as "your .NET Server", which for all intents and purposes could be considered to be like your Exchange Server - built by Microsoft as a product you can purchase or as a service you can subscribe to, residing at your ISP, your business, etc. Rest assured that Microsoft knows full well that businesses will want to run these servers within their own organization such that they can retain operational control. Microsoft's not that dumb as to think businesses will be willing to give up control of their data, but Microsoft will sure as hell offer .NET Servers as a service to those people who are willing to do so.

It sounds like it's going to be a tier2 design.

You got the presentation layer (your computer), the data layer (what stores all the info) and root.net (what makes sure everything is done right).

Actually, it's n-tier. Presentation layer on the device at the front end, data stores (yours and other parties') at the back end, but when you look between the two you'll find data store abstraction layers of various types, business object layers, potential layers upon of layers of services built on business objects, services built on top of collections of other services, and agents sitting on top of that feeding relevant information to the users' devices and assisting them in their computing tasks. Definitely n-tier.

yeah... whatever... tier something, lol.

Thats about all this comes down to, is a modernized hybrid of time-sharing and PCs. Sure its got alot more pizzaz and crap, but is it really that much better?

Frankly, I'd rather trust my rotting hard drive, then MS for keeping my files 'safe and secure' in some abstract location. I've watched windows randomly delete files of off my system, becuase A program crashed.

Constant upgrades. Sounds great, but seeing how MS is so determined to be ROOT.NET, and only having the past to base this on, I wouldn't trust them with that either. How many times has MS realsed a upgrade/patch, to only create more bugs, that are just as bad.

Yes, this is an old idea with good 'ole Oracle and those dam'd net PCs. I like to know that i own something, that i can use indepentaly from everything else. (well except the electricity...) This kills that idea. I have a box of electronics that are useless without some GigaPop connection to my local MegaCluster.... what happens if theres a nuke? All machines are useless... least now i can sheild one up with a bunch of lead ... and hope.

Security for this seems extremly difficult as well. What about export restrictions on ecryption. I dont want to take a trip to Europe, and have my credit caard number stolen, because of some stupid US laws.

And one more thing (i think...) What about Taxes. I hate the idea of taxing the internet, defeats its purpose. With this service concept... i'd see all sorts of tax laws being applied to it... so take that $56 figure and prolly add on $10 for taxes and franchise fees...

Lastly, if this was going to happen, i'd want it to come from some company that wasnt hell bent on forcing the world to use its second rate software. Watch, you'll have to subscrobe to IE.Net and MPlayer.Net just to get onto Office.Net. WTF!

Just my 2 cents ... about a 1/2 bit idea...

If all you think this is about is subscription-based applications you're missing the most important points made by the .NET initiative. GET READING! GO WATCH THE WEBCASTS! Then come back here and post your comments.

Ill admint, that yes, this idea has merit. Yet, however, just from the last paragraph of MS's whitepaper on this shebang, i have my doubts. Frankly, unless Ms has unscrewd its head... this will wind up like Win2k. A) Lets merge our window platorms, B) Waste a year+, C) Oops that was a bad idea, D) decide to have to versions of windows still... you know the story.

If it lives up to what the white paper says, it might turn out ok. But know how MS works, i find this idea s***y.

So A few questions:
A) What about those of us who dont want Windoze.Net, but want part of this idea?
B) Standards, ect. Look at MS's recent ploys with Kerbrose.
C) Open Source. Just how the heck does it fit in ;)

...to partly answer my first question, it seems to me that for this idea to be truly succesful, it must be enterily platform independent. (ala Java). I find it hard to understand how everything can be xml, unless xml somehow replaces Java in a functional sense down to the basic op-codes, per-se. (Not saying that java is the answer here....). I mean, how the heck do you write 'Quake 4' in xml?

It's not just about subscription applications. Office.net and such might about that mostly but Microsoft.net is the underlying infrastructure of megaservers that will glue it all together. Look at the article again at the examples given. The guy checking out movie listings and such and sending a message to his friend in real time. That's the sort of thing that Microsoft.net will allegedly help accomplish.

Whether they can make it happen or whether we want it to be MICROSOFT that makes it happen is something entirely different.

Simple. No one ever said that you were building the applications somehow _in_ XML. What has been stated is that the services (servers, applications, agents) will _communicate_ through XML and store information in XML form (or at the very least make it accessable in XML form even if it is stored internally in a proprietary format).

Build your .NET services on any platform you want in any language you want. As long as your services can interact with other .NET services (through SOAP), make whatever other platform and vendor choices you like. Wondering where Open Source fits in? I just answered the question.

Of course, Microsoft's leverage point here is that they are going to work as hard as they can to provide the tools and services to make their Windows platform the most compelling platform for the development and deployment of .NET services, BUT, since the underlying communications mechanism is SOAP over HTTP any vendor, group of individuals (here's where Open Source can plant their stake here), or individual can just as easily step up to the plate and help drive this application framework and its related standards forward such that anyone on any platform can take advantage of .NET services.

Think of .NET from an application developer's (or service developer/provider in .NET terms) perspective. Then, put on your Gibson or Stephenson glasses and look again.

From any device on any platform, you can access your personal information and interact with services provided by any vendor on any platform located anywhere.

Set up your own view of the world filled with information from sources you select, composed into a single consistent view, organized in the manner which best suits you, personalized based on your defined interests, and use that information to make decisions and use services to do your work, have your fun, whatever.

Obviously, the cyberspace-style implications of this are a _long_ way off, but the fundamental building blocks through which we can get there are right in front of us, and Microsoft has taken the first major step to push the industry in that direction.

XML as a platform neutral/vendor-neutral/dev. language-neutral open, ubiquitous messaging/RPC/data store enabling technology is right in front of us. It's up to us as application/service developers/providers to step up to the plate and make this thing happen, especially if you are one of those people who wants to make sure that Microsoft is _not_ in control of this beast. :-)

If you don't step up to the plate and MS does take control, you only have yourself to blame and you'll spend the rest of your days on /. crying about it. :-)

Both here and on Slashdot (though it's far worse over there) people have taken it upon themselves to read far far between the lines of what has been presented by Microsoft. And I'm willing to bet that most of the people flaming this initiative haven't taken the time to read the whitepapers and transcripts and to watch the webcasts.If you read carefully, nowhere does it say that Microsoft wants to own your data.Your .NET Server could be hosted by your ISP or your Corporate IS team as easily as by anyone else. Your data could be stored locally just as easily as remotely (and most people will). The system is designed to allow for offline use. You control who has access to what pieces of data in your XML Store and what they can do with that data.And to top it all off, subscription-based application services have been coming our way for a long time and most people will find them to be a vast improvement on the "Oh well, I guess it's time to shell out $500 for the latest version of Office..." You'll pay for the parts you need as you need them.Though mentioned in the article, IBM, AOL, Oracle, Sun, Nokia, Qualcomm, etc. need not jostle for position as "Root.Net" as mentioned in the article (a term _never_ mentioned in any of the Microsoft literature or presentations), because each and every one of them will be providers of these services, _just like Microsoft_. You'll be in the position to choose the services and providers you prefer.The only way Microsoft will be able to own and control this thing is if other organizations sit on their tails instead of jumping in and helping to drive these standards forward. If they don't, they'll get what they deserve.Spend some time reading the whitepapers, Q&A sessions, and transcripts, and you won't find yourself looking at Microsoft's evil plan to own the world. Instead, you'll realize that this is the first, most achievable way to free you from the confines of OS, platform, and the vendors of each. It just happens that Microsoft is leading the way. Open your eyes.

Sorry about the formatting. The system appears to not have HTML tag support and has no preview mechanism. My bad.

Sure, they are right within the confines of their white papers, but looking at the technology that's out there in a wide way, they aren't innovating, they are just putting their own spin on contemporary technology, just like they always do -- embrace and extend.

If they are given a position to dominate there is no proof to show that they wouldn't take advantage of that position in a way negative to the market (though I don'tagree with the way the government is dealing with the current situation).

There is no assumption that people will pay for software, competition could take away that cost (Sun, HP, others are primarily HARDWARE companies, remember) in favour of Linux or any other kernel. If you don't need a general purpose operating system, just a way of pointing your CPU at an application, who cares if its Microsoft or not, and with a huge part of the population becoming programmers, combined with object oriented technologies, there's really no way for them to dominate this sphere except through brand name recognition. It's just as likely that AOL, as sellers of network access, or Sony, or Nokia, will dominate the future of computer access and Microsoft overnight becomes unable to compete.

So once your data exists in the form of Word .doc's, etc out on some server somewhere, how do you go about migrating it to some other platform?

Presumably you don't have access to the server for loading up file conversion programs, so I guess you'd have to download your data to your own computer, assuming that your ROOT.net allows this. Oh, I forgot. You're not using a computer anymore. You've got to download the data to your PocketPC, etc. with limited local processing power.

Not that there's anything all that wrong with any of this, but there have to be some kind of ground rules, unless you're happy with a completely unregulated natural monopoly. (Oh, I forgot, some of you knee-jerk libertarians probably are).

For rules, why not start with the data. To vie for the position of ROOT.net, I propose that a vendor must make all user data available in an appropriate standard file format. No restriction on what that apps do internally for data storage, but all ROOT.net's must provide access to their customers' data in a portable format suitable for importing into another ROOT.net carrier. Without this, it will be impossible to switch 'carriers', and without the ability to switch, there will be no competition. After all, we're essentially talking about setting up a new communications medium here, and it would be pretty dumb to ignore the tendency toward monopoly that's built in.

There are definite advantages to this architecture, but monopoly building isn't one of them.

This is just more of that crap which Oracle wanted to do with their NC computers. That didn't pan out at all. People want real computers on their terms, not to be dictated to and at the mercy of some server somewhere just to do the least thing on one's computer.

such crap in my whole life.it makes absolutley no sense !!

Tell it to Microsoft then. They're "betting the company" on it. I guess you'll be selling any shares you have in them eh? ;)

Unfortantely to me it makes perfect sense for the software companies but not for most consumers. Well that's my opinion. If someone brought a PC a long time ago and is still running Office 95, it's most likely doing what they wanted it to do. So why should they be forced to upgrade all the time and over those years pay way much more than they are paying now.

Second I don't think this can happen for a long time. Broadband for a lot of people might be around in a few years but I still think more people will have slower connections and there is still quite a few people who don't connect to the net at all. Are these people all of a sudden just going to stop being able to get software? I doubt it. So they'll have to still make boxed copies for a long time to come.

Thirdly, ADSL in England right now is very expensive and not massively fast. If you was to get a game off the net, you'd have to cache it all virtually or you'd never be able to play it fast enough other than a slideshow. Are people going to be willing to wait a good wait for a 600 - 700 Meg game to download and cache locally? I think we need way way faster connections, something like Power Line Wide Area Networking... Now that is what I am talking about :)

Anyway the idea is good but I can't see it happening for a long time. Though WAP mobiles here in Europe are cool :) Can browse the net (In a limited text form) on my phone, send e-mails, look at my bank details and so on. So yeah there is benifits. :)

I think this one is not going to be well received! Looks like MS's goals are two fold: 1., to keep monthly income coming in from millions of people forever, and 2., to keep control over their software and customer base.
Well, I don't think most people will go for this. I agree with the poster that mentioned this is nothing more than reinvented time sharing. Microsoft's modus operandi in the past has been to entice millions of people to get hooked on inexpensive software, then drop the hammer. Sure, a few lamers will go for such a ploy, but most people will be extremely wary of trusting the Internet. As sure as you have an important job to do, the damn thing will go down for 2 hours. Or you wake up one morning and the price has doubled.

Halo couldnt be more right about the massive reading between the lines. People seem to start reading stuff in a very prejudiced way and only pick out ideas and suggestions that vagely represent their beliefs.

Who says MS is going to FORCE you to have your software updated. This is the age of SERVICE and with the aid of computers personalizing this kinds of services will be much more easier. Lets say you have a free year of the Office.net and you like major release number 4.0 and are reluctant to update to the new 5.0 coming up. Im imagining the better services will allow you to just select something like: "use updated service only if given user consent"... This can be done because the only thing the root has to do is devide bandwidth between different services and that is no problem when user information is available for the supercomputers to calculate.

Privacy seems to another issue here. Who is forcing you to make any more information about yourself available to you on a distant server than you want? There might be service providers that do require some more personal info on you, but YOU are the one making the choices. "sure theyll know when you take a crap" BS, if they dont have that capability already now, this service development wont bring it either. And I wouldnt mind my familydoctor or a doctorservice knowing if my "outings" contain some deadly bacteria and I can only be saved by immidiate care.

Im not saying the concept is bug-free, but it certainly is _a lot_ better than most of you whiners seem to be realising. Maybe this comes down to qualities man as a race lacks. New innovative ideas should be embraced and supported as long as they follow some public level of conduction. Instead people are so afraid of change they put new things down without giving them a chance:(read: racism, prejudice, "back in the day". F*** back in the day, thats history. The future is what we need to worry about.

Blaming MS for being a company out only for the money is kind of funny in this "capitalist example to old Europe"-country. Thats the whole idea. Lets recap just for the sake of clarification. Who makes companies big and who gives Big Bill his paychecks. YOU DO! Gates wouldnt have his millions if nobody bought MS products. The fact is that there was practically no real alternative the windows back in the day (3.0-95). Im looking at this from a normal consumers view. Ppl want products that are easy to use. Thats where MS was superior when it started out. It was and is an easily usable GUI. Only in the last years has MS had any respectable competition. And since ppl were used to having MS windows ver. xxx, they didnt mind upgrading their computers and having MS windows pre-installed. (that comes back to ppl disliking change and new things... ironic huh)

This is going of the subject but I just thought of it and I _have to_ (yes, MS is forcing me to write this, I have no will of my own) expand your views: Think about the primitive need of privacy. Where does it come from? YES (Im laughing at the stupidity of ppl as I fully realize my revelation) its the fact that you want to hide things you do that might not be approved by the general public or a certain group in some cases. Why would you really care if someone knew you were taking a crap. Because thats how we are brought up. (especially here in the states it seems like being naked in a sauna is sinful LOL). Do you need privacy if youre alone on a deserted island. No because theres no-one to judge you and your doings. Other people create the need for privacy because the society as a whole defines some activities as unacceptable, questionable and so on. If you have a want to do something that doesnt really harm or directly effect another person(including all living beings, we are all created equal, eventhough we might be the smarter of the lot, we do the stupidest things to our world) in the society then by all means I think you should be able to do that without any interference or judgement from others. If you enjoy peeing on yourself(or something else people concieve as sickly perverted) then why should anyone else (except maybe your doctor for health reasons, or the cleaner) have a say in that? AAaahh Ill stop here, or Ill keep on going about everything that sucks, and nobody wants that.

"Humans define their reality through pain and suffering."
"Humans are a disease."
And sure enough our spreading mimics the pattern of a virus.

(prolly get my membership hacknslashed after this post ;)