Any day now, details of IE8 will begin to emerge and my question will have a black and white answer. Until then though, I'm free to speculate about the best way for Microsoft getting Silverlight to the masses. Right now, I don’t see how else they could get quick adoption with minimal effort. For those who are scratching their heads at this point, Silverlight is essentially a Web-based version of Microsoft's Windows Presentation Foundation, the user-interface framework in Windows Vista. In other words, Silverlight is Microsoft’s answer to Flash (see, it is possible not to say Flash killer). The technology is backed by Microsoft’s .Net Framework; designers can use Microsoft Expression Studio and developers can use Microsoft Visual Studio to put together Silverlight applications for the interactive web. Those interested can choose from various languages, including JavaScript, Ruby, Python, C# and Visual Basic .NET.
Silverlight currently supports Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari, Windows and Mac OS, but no Opera or Linux. Still, I have to say, that’s definitely progress for Microsoft. On the other hand, they don’t exactly have a choice if they want mass adoption. Flash is definitely a cross-browser as well as a cross-platform plugin, and it has been thus so for quite some time. I have yet to hear anything in terms of Opera support, but there has been news of Linux progress made for Silverlight. Unfortunately, by progress I mean discussions but no public builds. Of course, that’s irrelevant when it comes to IE8, but it’s only fair to give a good background overview.
Microsoft is already testing websites with Silverlight-only features, and version 1.0 was released over three months ago. Internet Explorer 8 has not even reached beta form - there is plenty of time to get a new version of Silverlight finalized (1.1 has been in alpha form since September as well). One thing is certain: Microsoft has not picked an easy road for itself. Macromedia (now part of Adobe) has held the crown for ages. If you want multimedia applications on your website, there really isn’t a solid alternative to Flash. Consequently, Flash has not had many major changes over the years, although Adobe has recently made one big improvement: Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR). It should be noted that Sun’s JavaFX also wants in on the fun, but that doesn’t seem to be making as big of a splash as Silverlight, although if someone believes otherwise I’d be interested to hear their perspective.
AIR, previously codenamed Apollo, is actually meant for building rich Internet applications and exporting them to the flash format (.swf) or HTML files. Ideally, it is meant to ultimately succeed Flash, but in reality it is just a cross-OS extension to Adobe’s Flex Software Development Kit. AIR does not have an Integrated Development Environment: developers are encouraged to use their existing web development skills in HTML, AJAX, Flash and Flex. The point is, it isn’t exactly a successor to Flash, so it’s not as if Silverlight will become obsolete before it can reach a solid adoption level. As we’ve seen with Firefox and IE7, competition can be a wonderful thing. Chances are (given Microsoft's reach as well as IE's market share) that in a year or two, it will be necessary to have both Flash and Silverlight installed to get the “full online experience.”
Returning to the original question though, I honestly believe it comes down to whether or not Microsoft deems Silverlight ready to go. I personally haven’t seen any major quirks (or minor bugs for that matter) with version 1.0 (except for the lack of a x64 version, which Adobe happily doesn't support either), but then again there aren’t that many sites that make use of the wonderful technology. Microsoft can’t afford to push an unfinished version of Silverlight. Well, actually they can, but it would be such a waste seeing as the demos so far have been very impressive. If Microsoft does indeed plan to bundle it, I wonder if they will bother putting a checkbox at the beginning of the installation of IE8. If so, will it be checked by default? Anti-competitiveness is something Microsoft will be sure to try to avoid.
If you can’t see Microsoft bundling Silverlight with some version of Internet Explorer, how do you believe the software giant will push its Flash killer? Darn, I said it.
True, it would be also for people to realise that Microsoft is just as evil as Adobe; at least with Microsoft, they're working with Novell to deliver *NIX/*BSD support instead of the current situation where Adobe works with no one and provides crap *NIX/*BSD support.
Sure, Silverlight may seen as having disadvantages being proprietary software, but the same goes for Flash, and both technologies support the most popular browsers and operating systems. Personally, I'd be mostly interested in Silverlight 1.1 to make use of my knowledge of .NET better. But if it's out of alpha, beta, and even done by the time of IE 8, I wouldn't be surprised if MS just go ahead and include it. It's not having a that big disk footprint anyway.
If there's a checkbox, I don't think it matters if it's by default checked or not. In either case, they provide an option to the user. What they've been in trouble for before is when they haven't even provided an option and just bundled something.
Last edited by Jugalator on 07 Dec 2007 - 12:10
If there's a checkbox, I don't think it matters if it's by default checked or not. In either case, they provide an option to the user. What they've been in trouble for before is when they haven't even provided an option and just bundled something.
You forgot most end users and even some beta I-found-on-my-language's-site-as-a-free-download-users never even read checkboxes, they just keep pressing Next.
THAT is the question. Will it be default checked so the average Joe will install it without knowledge?
I didn't forget a thing. Stop assuming things.
The thing is that if the user has his/her eyes closed when clicking on the Next button while headbanging and singing Britney Spears' latest single, that's then entirely their own fault.
Maybe you forgot about that? :-p
Seriously, if they have a CHECK BOX, what more can they do? If you or someone else just randomly click Next buttons without even seeing what's checked, you deserve what's coming for you, not Microsoft. Microsoft will have provided the options for you that they can. There's no more to an option to provide than the option itself.
They have enough trouble including integrated search into their own OS (i.e. Vista) never mind bundling this with IE.
You might think they could install both Silverlight AND flash to avoid problems but this hasn't worked for them before either, they had to remove the save as PDF/XPS functionality in Office 2007 and have that as a separate download (even though it is probably my most used new feature of Office 2007)
Best they can hope for is have it as a featured "add on" after setup is complete. Like how Vista says, now you have installed me why not install Windows Live stuff and OneCare etc.
Microsoft should be able to include it, as a "tick here" option, just like so many applications try (unsuccessfully) to install the google desktop application onto my PC.
Microsoft should be able to include it, as a "tick here" option, just like so many applications try (unsuccessfully) to install the google desktop application onto my PC.
Not to mention Yahoo "foolbar".
Fix/redo IE before incorporating/bundling anymore junk with it.
Silverlight seems to be the next step though. I wouldn't mind if they bundled it. I mean, hell, if you're trying to get an out-of-the-box working browser, it's not a bad idea. Though, I think a browser should come bundled with all the necessities honestly, with the option to remove on install of course. (Flash, a PDF reader)
Fix/redo IE before incorporating/bundling anymore junk with it.
indeed, there SO FAR behind, and they even admitted that they dont care about web standards
they will fail if they dont
Fix/redo IE before incorporating/bundling anymore junk with it.
indeed, there SO FAR behind, and they even admitted that they dont care about web standards
they will fail if they dont
Have you ever coded anything that's backward compatible and used by million of users with a billion permutations?
Clearly, many people aren't realizing that "ease of use" is completely subjective.
Microsoft is built out of many teams in many divisions. You have an IE team, who work on IE, you have a Silverlight team, who work on Silverlight. The teams focus on a myriad of designated projects. It's not the case of Microsoft are solely concentrating on Silverlight.
LOL. Yeah, ok.
Paraphrased by me. There is Linux support with Moonlight:
http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight
Have you developed for it?
No? Then don't post about that which you obviously have no knowledge.
Have you developed for it?
No? Then don't post about that which you obviously have no knowledge.
Agreed. I have and it's gold.
Seriously, who the heck uses Silverlight?
besides, flash works better and is much more common
have you even tried silverlight versus flash ? silverlight is not only faster and smoother while using less resources, it's also doesn't take as long to download.
have you even tried silverlight versus flash ? silverlight is not only faster and smoother while using less resources, it's also doesn't take as long to download.
I seriously find it hard to believe that this whole support system to run silverlight is using less resources than Flash. On my system, Flash 9 is a 1.4MB RPM download. Just the Mono core (don't know what other components may be required) is a 14MB file. That is a factor of 10 for the executables (no, I didn't cheat and use source code size). Once that is in place, then I can go get Moonlight. I don't think so.
EDIT: My story might be different if I required or used .net for anything else. But I sure has Hades don't need it just to play Sliver/Moonlight.
Last edited by markjensen on 07 Dec 2007 - 19:25
have you even tried silverlight versus flash ? silverlight is not only faster and smoother while using less resources, it's also doesn't take as long to download.
Silverlight actaully uses MORE resources... just run a profiler against it... and having to have a 60MB framework for it vs a 2 MB flash program... big difference there in size also...
It's not 60mb, it's around 4mb at the moment (it might grow before it's final, but it wont be 60)
It's not 60mb, it's around 4mb at the moment (it might grow before it's final, but it wont be 60)
The .NET framework is 60MB... haven't you seen it lately? .NET 2.0 was 58MB alone! Please read what I said closely... "and having to have a 60MB framework for it" so thats 60MB PLUS the silverlight addon if you want it's full features
It's not 60mb, it's around 4mb at the moment (it might grow before it's final, but it wont be 60)
The .NET framework is 60MB... haven't you seen it lately? .NET 2.0 was 58MB alone! Please read what I said closely... "and having to have a 60MB framework for it" so thats 60MB PLUS the silverlight addon if you want it's full features
You realise that Silverlight IIRC is not dependent on .NET? I thought that the plugin itself didn't require the installation of .NET given that bundles only what it needs as part of the download.
Currently, it seems to require the full implementation (reference), but it seems that they are working on reducing the Moonlight requirements to only the .Net APIs that are necessary, plus the new APIs that Silver(Moon)light requires for the Silverlight-specific features.
another halo site http://halo.msn.com/videosHD.aspx
Last edited by Waylander on 07 Dec 2007 - 18:57
I'm sure they don't have to bundle it, we all have to go out and download flash once in a while, but the chicken - egg situation is if no site uses it, you won't download it and if nobody has it, they won't make sites with it ...
Then again, why should they bundle it? If you go to a Silverlight website without having Silverlight, you get a link to the Silverlight download site. Bundling is not required, as the program is only a few clicks away ;-)
I tink teh Fiji guvment r spyingz on teh me ye! Nt 2 menten teh guvment of Greenland.
The UN spying on me? I imagine that it would be rife with bureaucracy and corruption so I can't say I'm scared.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.