Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Why I Like Longhorn and XAML
- From: "Steve Boyce" <SteveB@hbs.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:05:06 -0000
- Cc: <email@example.com>
- Thread-index: AcOjnQsee8P0pR6CSl6jaSNIuWae5AAF9qTg
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Why I Like Longhorn and XAML
>> Just to add briefly to Oleg's good points, it seems to me that MS
>> think very clearly about where their unique value is and how to
> Duplicating functionality of existing standards and grooping them
under a new acronym
> does not really stand for unique value.
It seems to me, they thought about the value of the windows desktop and
how to leverage that into the dot net strategy. The way you put it
seems back-to-front in terms of how I would have imagined MS think about
themselves. They decide a strategy and follow it very consistently
through, and acknowledge mistakes - I can really see that with the new
software versions I am working with. (By the way, I / my company worked
a long time with Java but are pulling back from that now)
>> (And by the way, Office 2003 is the
>> first Office upgrade for many years that seems to offer genuine value
>> for money in terms of business benefit)
> As an developer that finds XML handy, Office 2003 has nothing to give
> me. It's too overpriced for a number of my clients and advanced
> are in the top of the price catalog.
OK, this is probably fair comment. But I still feel MS did a good job
with this package, especially if you add in the complete MS back-office
environment, there is a *lot* of added business-process value there.
Well: Enough said, probably.