Which Technology Is Better Microsoft/java

[drhowarddrfine]

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with the viewpoint that software MUST be open source to be any good.

I hear that more and more from MS defenders but I do not recall ever hearing anyone say that. At least not among the professional people I deal with. I'm not even sure I've heard that on any forums either.

look at apps made for XP that added support for hardware-based alpha blending and allowed an amazing degree of shell modfication

You could do the same thing if the hardware vendors supplied the same drivers to Linux/Unix. They don't/won't, I assume due to pressure from MS.

I suggest the Linux and Apple people drop some of the elitist attitudes

Most innovation occured in those camps (and Unix). Microsoft has never been known as an innovator, only a copycat. Or a buyer of technologies. The elitist attitude was earned.

[Atli]

You could do the same thing if the hardware vendors supplied the same drivers to Linux/Unix. They don't/won't, I assume due to pressure from MS.

I'd just call that good buisness, not wasting efforts developing software that only a fraction of computer users would use.

[marshal]

Hi,
Two are equally good. But Sun Java is better because of its hi security. Also in case of user-friendlliness Microsoft is ahead of java. So, according to application you have to choose which is better for you. Thanks.
Marshal

[Newbie19]

In the world of servers, I found it depends on who you are and what you need to do, if it is a simple network with a simple server then windows. However, if it is a complex network with security then JAVA.

[Atli]

In the world of servers, I found it depends on who you are and what you need to do, if it is a simple network with a simple server then windows. However, if it is a complex network with security then JAVA.

I'd say a simple(cheap) server would be Linux/PHP and more complex would be ASP.NET or maybe JSP

[drhowarddrfine]

I'd just call that good buisness, not wasting efforts developing software that only a fraction of computer users would use.

It's a chicken/egg thing. If they made the drivers available, how many would switch to Linux? Also, I don't know how difficult it would be to do that. The only thing that would need to change would be the interface and the main driver code would remain the same. That's why I think it's pressure from MS to not do that.

However, Nvidia does supply drivers and AMD, who just bought ATI, has said they are making an announcement in the next month regarding Linux drivers.

[DeMan]

I find I use whateveer they put in front of me at work.......

[Newbie19]

I find I use whateveer they put in front of me at work.......

Don't we All do that at work. I know I do, makes life a little easier (some days).

[InvalidPointers]

I hear that more and more from MS defenders but I do not recall ever hearing anyone say that. At least not among the professional people I deal with. I'm not even sure I've heard that on any forums either.

It's sort of implied by what is/isn't supported. Obviously you won't defend anything that you believe to be inferior as a whole, which is reasonably obvious, but point I'm trying to make is that you do give that impression.

You could do the same thing if the hardware vendors supplied the same drivers to Linux/Unix. They don't/won't, I assume due to pressure from MS.

I was more referring to the lines of customization/modification, hence the earlier Ubuntu reference. I would actually gander that most vendors don't support Linux due to lack of user base. In fact, the only reason OpenGL 3.0 (and perhaps 2.1? Not 100% familiar with its feature set) even offers HW-accelerated DX10-like functionality is that hardware vendors opted to be nice and release some of the extensions to be used within the API, no joke. Someone said something about copying, right? yes? I see. Think what you will.

Although for a laugh look up something called the oPhone. ( internally produced, BTW. Funny as well! ) Microsoft does admit that they do take ideas from other companies, but then again so does, let's face it, pretty much any business in any industry. It genuinely isn't a bad practice, as often times interesting features or gimmicks deserve to see some form of standardization . Classic example of this is in the game industry. If it weren't for people taking the ball and running with it, we'd all still be playing Doom I, as opposed to Gears, Halo or other big-name games out there. (go ahead, point out backing if you want to. I just picked what's big today. These are the things you hear everybody swapping stories about) Goes on in graphics R&D all the time, for that matter.

It's a chicken/egg thing. If they made the drivers available, how many would switch to Linux? Also, I don't know how difficult it would be to do that. The only thing that would need to change would be the interface and the main driver code would remain the same. That's why I think it's pressure from MS to not do that.

See previous statement on OpenGL. Also: Linux is reasonably harder to get things up and running for, which is why most people (who don't always have degrees in CS) don't and probably never will use it. I could also make points on standardization but for now I turn things back to you. Touche.

[drhowarddrfine]

It's still a chicken/egg thing. Better hardware support would offer better software support by developers, or at least easier to port software. OpenGL is based on GL* which was created by Silicon Graphics which was a Unix only vendor (IRIX). But no company does anything just to be nice. There must be some profit motive somewhere.

* I can't remember the exact original name for GL and it's embarrassing since I was a system engineer for SGI years ago.

[drhowarddrfine]

I forgot to continue my original point. So, if more developers worked on Linux, there would be more GUI interfaces to make installation easier for non-techie types.

However, I'm still not sure it would happen. I've always said that Windows is for the everyman while Linux/Unix/BSD is for getting real work done. iow, Windows is the family van while Unix is the working man's MAC truck.

[praveen2gupta]

I have worked earlier on Microsoft Technologies. Right Now I have migrated to Java Technologies. I finds that Java Technologies are better. Java provides Basic Fundamentals of each concepts . I Like it . A good bookes are available to understand the technologies. MS does not provide any good language which can be compared with java.

[drhowarddrfine]

Here’s 12 reasons Web 2.0 entrepreneurs like Ross tell me that they aren’t using Microsoft’s stuff:

[Vinothbabu]

purely depends upon you and your needs. I basically use JAVA, but cannot say that .NET is not that good.

[devikacs]

I use java because i don't like mono.