Reach vs Fidelity: WinFX, Atlas, WPF/E, XBAP and ASP.NET

Looks like a nail

JD on EP — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:28:56 GMT

Looks like a nail: Microsoft staffer Ian Mouster writes: "In the world of application delivery there has long been a choice between reach and fidelity: either your application is high fidelity (eg a rich client with a rich user experience) or it

re: Reach vs Fidelity: WinFX, Atlas, WPF/E, XBAP and ASP.NET

barry.b — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:50:59 GMT

>>If you take the individual pieces of WinFX - eg the Presentation Foundation, Workflow Foundation, Communications Foundation, .NET 2.0

stop already with the buzzwords. Microsoft has a habit of pidgen-holing ideas into certain "technologies" when really it's all just spin on particular functionality.

>> But there's nothing out there that comes close to the integrated whole that is WinFX.

analogy: before IPOD times, when PPL were looking at home hi-fi the choices were all-in-one systems or descrete components. if your all-in-one had a poor AM/FM tuner you had to put up with it. I personaly like to spend the extra $$$ to get the better components. At least there's a standard API (RCA plugs and voltage levels) to connect it all together...

Ian, nothing you mention is new to the world or exclusive to Microsoft. it can all be done with other technologies and the argument between "Rich Vs Reach" has all been covered by Macromedia with RIA's. Old news.

I've recently switched over to Apple machines. how far will WinFXs' "reach" extend then?

re: Reach vs Fidelity: WinFX, Atlas, WPF/E, XBAP and ASP.NET

ianm — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:21:19 GMT

Thanks for the comments Barry. I'm not entirely sold on your analogy to be honest - building software is a whole lot different to stringing together bits of hi-fi equipment. Taking a piece-meal approach to software development, where you have different technologies and different vendors for every piece, introduces problems with different support skills, different development tools, integration nightmares and often needs an army of consultants to make it work.

But there's room for more than one idea, and that's one of the great thing about this industry. I'm sure time will tell whether one approach will come out on top, but actually there's probably room for all of us.

Atlas and Windows Presentation Foundation

Jerome Carron's Weblog — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:28:03 GMT

What’s of interest to Canadian Developers? That’s the question I’m always contemplating. I can’t say...

Windows Presentation Foundation ou Atlas?

Jerome Carron's Weblog — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:40:02 GMT

Qu’est-ce qui intéresse les développeurs canadiens? C’est la question que je me pose toujours. Je ne...

re: Reach vs Fidelity: WinFX, Atlas, WPF/E, XBAP and ASP.NET

techSage — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:50:49 GMT

Barry,
WPF/e will actually allow for quite a reach onto the Mac platform via Safari or Firefox plugins for WPF/e.

Plus, with Macs running Intel chips and the advances that are being made in not just virtualization, but running Windows apps alone in the Mac OS via Wine opens the possibility of running an XBAP in IE6/7 on a Mac.

Oh, and stop using buzzwords (i.e. RIAs). :) WPF, Atlas and XBAP are names for MS's offerings in the industry just like everyone else has (Yahoo, Google, Adobe/Macromedia, etc.). What, do you want MS to call their different technologies AJAX or Web 2.0 like everyone else? They are not the same.

As far as Macromedia and others having already covered these strategies, the difference is the number of developers using Macromedia and other development environments versus those using Visual Studio. When you open up the rich options that WPF/e alone offers to developers that just want to use Microsoft standard development tools rather than 3rd party tools, you make it a lot easier for a large number of powerful, useful applications to make it into the mainstream than with Macromedia technologies. When was the last time you saw a Flash app that actually handled something other than a presentation of multimedia (that is mainstream, too)?

Just a few thoughts.

re: Reach vs Fidelity: WinFX, Atlas, WPF/E, XBAP and ASP.NET

ks — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:52:13 GMT

what about windows forms. How does the 3rd party market look or WPF to help with LOB app dev?

TechCrunch UK » Blog Archive » Desktop browser applications anyone?

TechCrunch UK » Blog Archive » Desktop browser applications anyone? — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:43 GMT

PingBack from http://uk.techcrunch.com/?p=14

re: Reach vs Fidelity: WinFX, Atlas, WPF/E, XBAP and ASP.NET

VirtualLNK — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:11:22 GMT

WPF/XBAP is an awesome tool for web development. Yet, my company is still forced to use Asp.Net due to WPFs font rendering. When you talk about reach, consider all the people who get headaches from reading WPF's blurry text. I simply won't use a program that has blurry fonts like those found in WPF and silverlight.