digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Silverlight Community Site Launches

silverlight.net — "Welcome to the Silverlight community site, where you will find the latest information about Silverlight for both designers and developers. This is the one place to hear directly from the product teams that are creating the technologies and tools and to interact directly with the community through the forums and the gallery."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13"Welcome to the Social...er...the Community.." or...something
    • avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+74Welcome to more Linux incompatibility.
    • hyankov, on 10/12/2007, -50/+8@avihappy - Who gives a crap?
    • avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39They are releasing a Windows and Mac version, but no Linux version was announced. And as for who gives a crap, I would say a very high percentage of the geek population. I personally use a Mac the most (Ubuntu Linux at other times) and I don't want anyone to be excluded from anything for wanting to try something new and exiting.
    • RossTizma, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5That's because real collaborative developers don't use Linux.
    • avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23Isn't Linux itself a collaborative project?
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16The problem with Silverlight is that the development must be done on a Windows box. THe cross-platform ***** is just for the end user experience. This is in direct competition with Adobe Apollo, right?
    • bobmcsmith, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Nobody said Microsoft doesn't want to make money...after Mac OS X, the next most popular browser platform is the mobile phone. If Linux was a big enough market and they could actually make money, don't you think they would support it?

      @rasterbator: Visual Studio is Windows-only, but you can use a Text editor on a Mac to do all the development if you want. Eventually I'm sure there will be plenty of third-party editors. Plus you can debug it while its running on the Mac (though that does require a Windows system)
    • Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3@ rasterbator

      To quote what i said lower in this comment string

      " Yeah, because software apple creates run just fantastic on All OS's.

      Get a clue will you, it's called business, Apple creates software that only runs on mac's (perfect example, safari) and the only reason linux created apps work cross platform is because they are based on Java, not to mention the fact that each and every distro in the linux family is slightly different and i VERY much doupt that microsoft want's to even consider supporting a community that is so different and unstandardized across all it's versions.

      Any lastly, who cares if it only runs on the Windows environment? every self respecting tech organization, no matter what there in office preference, will have at least one Windows based PC, and if they don't then obviously what they are doing is not very important."
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9An easy to draw / remember / identify logo it has, eh?
    • clubby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Archer1980:

      "... the only reason linux created apps work cross platform is because they are based on Java ..."

      No. Although you can write Java programs under Linux, you can also write programs in other languages that will run because their supporting libraries have Windows versions available, and they can be re-compiled. 99% of Linux software has nothing whatsoever to do with Java. In general, however, a compiled linux application will not run under Windows at all unless VMs are involved.
    • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Eh. What does Apple have to do with this? As far as I know, they have never created proprietary web frameworks. And BTW, developing web standards should not be business

      Last time Microsoft tryed to do something like this, it failed completely(it was a proprietary alternative to HTML)
    • Chandon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Archer1980: The difference between GNU/Linux distributions is trivial. Hell, the difference between GNU/Linux, Solaris, and *BSD is trivial. Unlike Windows and Mac OS X which are utterly incompatible with everything else in the world, the Unixish standard of POSIX+Gtk allows for applications that run pretty much anywhere.
    • Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@clubby

      But even then you still have to re-compile it, and for big business why bother recompiling for an industry that can't standardize across all it's distro's and change every 6 months? or might not even exist in 6 months depending on popularity. The fact is that until Linux standardizes across the board, there are going to be continuously left out in the cold. As for mac's, don't even get me started on that piece of crap little white box.
    • diggcopblowme, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Official Noise of the Silverlight Forums: quietly chirping crickets.
    • mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5For everyone crying about Silverlight not being on Linux:
      http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9714669-7.html

      It's a wonder what Google can do, eh? ;]
    • Anonymous3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@JorgeGT: Someone said to me it looked like underpants rotated 135 degrees to the right, and I had to agree with them...
    • kevinlyfellow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ bobmcsmith

      You are right, but people who are concerned about the latest technologies are more likely to use linux. Early on, they are screwed, since they leave many early adopters out. In the long run, it doesn't matter (unless linux user base grows). Secondly, the news sites were touting about how it is "open source". Well, apparently the "open" parts can only be developed in windows. Why not open it up for linux user/developers who are experienced of dealing with open source codes? Having something ported to linux is about having a larger developer base and not about having a larger user base.
  • nlogax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Silly season indeed.
    http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/05/02/silly-season
  • Nagash, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6I tried alot of the examples and they dont work at all.......

    Surprised????? Nope
    • SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16You have to actually, you know, *download Silverlight* before the Sliverlight examples will work. Just like flash.
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I installed it on Vista (firefox), and some of the examples are just white boxes, others seem to work fine...
    • macewan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5MS Faux Flash isn't going to fool too many - hopefully.
    • jackdiesel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@SEMW

      I installed silverlight and only one of the examples works in Safari. I think this is what he's referring to.
    • Ingenium13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I installed Silverlight on Windows XP, and it doesn't work in Firefox or IE7. It simply doesn't install it. IE7 shows a "Get Silverlight" logo, and Firefox shows a blank page. Under about:plugins in Firefox, Silverlight is not listed. Figures...
    • mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Under about:plugins in Firefox, Silverlight is not listed. Figures..."

      Weird, it works perfectly for me in IE and Firefox. I don't see it in about:plugins but it does show WPFe, which I'm assuming is Silverlight?
    • SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yesm WPF/E is Silverlight.
  • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35As if IE wasn't enough to muck up the web, now we have this. Oh the humanity!
    • Quix, on 10/12/2007, -18/+14Just say NO to proprietary Microsoft Web technologies.

      Cross-platform my butt. It will be cross-platform just long enough to gain a position of influence, then you can kiss your non-Windows platform support goodbye.

      Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
    • ohthehumanity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12You called ?
    • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Um, moron, its a plug in. Meaning, it doesn't touch web "standards" . You go to a website with silverlight and it works the same as flash. You install it and it runs rich content so that Microsoft doesn't have to break web standards trying to make I.E. more feature rich then what the W3C gets around to "standardizing".
  • eadatre, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Have you noticed that the site doesn't render correctly in ie6?

    It is fine in Opera, Firefox, IE7 and I imagine safari...

    Go microsoft!
  • STARTSOMETHING, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8will silverlight work properly with Firefox if not im not even wasting my time trying it out
    • thoand, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5not in my FF 2

      edit:
      not in my IE 6 either
    • Waterrat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6 I was able to watch it with Firefox.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Works fine in Firefox and IE7 for me.
    • gregharmon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It works fine in "my" firefox 2.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No problems in Firefox 2.0.0.3 here. I tried every example on the "Top Rated" page and all rendered identically in FF and IE7.
    • bobmcsmith, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Working great in FF 2.0 for me
    • simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1maybe they're addressing their long standing computability issues with this? :-|
  • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -16/+20I hope Adobe wins this battle. They are not as evil, and releases development tools for both Windows and OS X. They also embrace OSS with Apollo and Flex!

    Microsoft should focus on supporting CSS instead of trying to revolutionize the web!
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Adobe is no saint. Flash is crap, and should have NEVER been used for video.

      I hope that, in the long run, both Adobe and Microsoft fail.

      LAMP + AJAX + CSS + MPEG-4 = WINNER.
    • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You obviously hasn't heard of Adobe Apollo. According to wikipedia it is:
      "a cross-OS runtime that allows developers to employ their existing web development skills (Flash, Flex, HTML, Ajax) to build and deploy desktop Rich Internet Applications."

      It is a direct competitor to Silverlight.
    • gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Seriously, ***** Adobe. Have you ever tried using PDFs for anything more than converting a Word Doc to PDF. It completley sucks. Acrobat is expensive. Its features are limited. Its API is a joke and does not work with Reader making and client side stuff impossible. Programaitcally creating documents is a joke. BAcwards compaitbility is constantly a problem with all versions. The application (including reader) is way too heavy for a document reader. Yet, PDF persists because of Adobe's early marketing effort. Go to any Acrobat news group and you will wonder why the hell this product is still around.

      Anything Adobe has made as a development platform is a joke.
    • rssej, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@gilbes, youre an idiot.
    • questionable, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Adobe may not be "evil," but they dominate the creative industry. PDF, Photoshop, and now Flash are all under the Adobe umbrella. The only place they don't completely own is film editing, thanks to some help from Avid. Adobe is behemoth in its own right, a monopoly in a more specialized sector of computing.

      I hope Adobe doesn't win this. I'm tired of PDFs and I'm not a fan of Flash either. I'm just peeved that Microsoft has to be the one to do it, but I guess they're the only one with the bank account willing to do it.
    • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10PDF is an ISO-standard now, anyone can create apps that use and creates PDF-documents.
    • rssej, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I agree that the monopoly Adobe has now is troubling. But Microsoft wants a monopoly on all revenue generating software, and I find that the much greater evil. Unlike MS, Adobe tends to put quality, though at times bloated, software; i cannot say the same about MS. Between Google, OpenOffice.org, and Keynote (of course, only mac owners can reap the benefits of that last one), i dont have to waste my HD space of MS products.. Powerpoint is stuck in the late 90s, i find openoffice quicker to work with, and excel is the best of the suite but i google apps suffice.

      Back to the topic, i apologize for going way off topic, im all for competition, but Flash is so ubiquitous and myspace and youtube sealed the deal with flash basically being on everyones browser. As for flash as a video format, not the greatest, but come on; people should be going after wmv, for th file size it gives, at high setting, the on2 vp6 gives wonderful results, and everyone can view it. mp4 is hte best sizes, and im a fan of quicktime, but as a webdesign, i can integrate video in my site more effectively than other formats.

      Im still feeling the frustrations of dealing with standard lacking IE for the past few years, so i have a bitter taste in my mouth with microsoft, but i admit i was pretty impressed with Blend. But being a designer first, adobe still has everything i needs, and i cant take microsoft design software seriously, I just flash had more improvements for the designer/animator.
    • gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@rssej, you obviously don't use Acrobat enough.

      While I realize that PDF is an ISO standard, at this moment that means nothing. I don't live in the fanciful world where everyone has some super implementation of a PDF reader that allows a person to do some very reasonable things.

      I live in the real world. And our customers have Adobe Acrobat Reader. And Adobe Acrobat Reader is garbage for doing anything but displaying/printing the text and images of a PDF document. In the real world we have to live with that fact. And after years of thousands of developers bitching, Adobe still hasn't made Reader any better.

      The API for Acrobat is comlpes and hard to use. Harder than it should be. But we can live with that. What is the #1 complaint is that the API is not availble in any form for Reader. That one thing alone makes Adobes whole Acrobat initialtive worthless. I can go on to many things from there, but that one thing is inexcusable. If PDF is the serious documnet format they claim, then it should be possible to create powerful programs that leverage the power of those documents that can be easily put in to end users hands. Acrobat Reader, the PDF defacto standard does not provide that ability. And writing it all yourself is not an option for the real business of the real world.

      Almost every single MS program has a wonder API.
    • rssej, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'll give you that. The reader is probably my least favorite of Adobe main apps. I use my mac more than my pc, so i tend to just use preview, which is one of the most underrated apps out there. Its a shame that a solid format like pdf is terribly represented in the reader. Thats a problem adobe should address. Across teh adobe line, i find their products, though not the easiest, more intuitive then MS, though they have become better but still a tad disappointing.
    • Fanon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"PDF is an ISO-standard now, anyone can create apps that use and creates PDF-documents."

      It sure is, and Adobe cried foul with Microsoft included Save as PDF in Office 2007.
  • KillerX, on 10/12/2007, -22/+17Silverlight is lame! You can only develop for it if your running Windows. All this is for is to lock web developers into Microsoft's crappy lame ass OS monopoly of mediocre crap. Don't fall for this ***** technology. It's not truly cross platform.

    Damn Microsoft sucks ass, and it's lemming Fan Dork Cult Members are just as bad.

    Marked as SPAM.
    • xXShadowstormXx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17According to Ars Technica, Silverlight is easier to develop for than Flash is.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"According to Ars Technica, Silverlight is easier to develop for than Flash is. "

      Flash is ***** too. Just because Silverlight might be slightly less ***** doesn't change the fact that it's still *****.

      Flash has just been widely misused and Microsoft figures maybe they can get one of their technologies to be just as misused. Flash is great for animation and certain kinds of web applications, like Pandora. It's terrible as a web framework for an entire site, and the rise of Flash video is one of the worst things to ever happen. The On2 VP6 codec is pure crap. Measured against XviD it can barely stack up, and measured against X264 it looks like a complete failure.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Any developer who has looked into WPF instantly knows a great deal about how Silverlight works, and with the 1.1 alpha, any .NET developer can do it.

      I've been learning WPF on and off (College leaves no free time....), and I personally like it.
    • Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Yeah, because software apple creates run just fantastic on All OS's.

      Get a clue will you, it's called business, Apple creates software that only runs on mac's (perfect example, safari) and the only reason linux created apps work cross platform is because they are based on Java, not to mention the fact that each and every distro in the linux family is slightly different and i VERY much doupt that microsoft want's to even consider supporting a community that is so different and unstandardized across all it's versions.

      Any lastly, who cares if it only runs on the Windows environment? every self respecting tech organization, no matter what there in office preference, will have at least one Windows based PC, and if they don't then obviously what they are doing is not very important.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2HerrEisenheim: "Flash is *****...Flash is great"

      Make up your damn mind. You seem to be pissed at Flash (and Silverlight for that matter) because people misuse it. Boo-freakin-hoo, get over it. People have been misusing tools since the beginning of time. Do you blame Craftsman when somebody misuses a hammer?
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Archer1980

      Apple doesn't create proprietary web frameworks, last I checked. Even their web browser engine is open source.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@EtherGnat2

      Touché. I should have said, "The way in which Flash is typically used is ***** anyway."
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Silverlight's not really a direct competitor to Flash, which is more about animations and vector drawing. It competes with Flex (which is open source and free now, by the way) and to some degree, Apollo.

      That said, Ars Technica is not drawing a valid comparison anyway; who's to say that coding in an ECMAScript variant is harder than .NET? It just depends on what you're used to.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@xXShadowStormXx

      Which doesn't seem to matter at all unless you are running Windows, which is why Flash will continue to win. As long as Microsoft ties everything they make together, they won't be able to reach as many customers as Adobe can.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"And also looks like you'll need to install .NET framework to develop desktop apps."

      And, uh, dare I ask, what's wrong with that?
  • Zetsubou, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4KillerX. Silverlight works with any OS and any browser.

    http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/downloads.aspx
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12By "any OS" you mean Mac OS and Windows, right? Because that's all that are listed there. That's not called "any." That's called "two."

      And by "any browser" I hope you also mean "three", because it's only supported on IE, Firefox, and Safari.
    • monkeyness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sounds like that covers 99% of web users to me...
  • peterjhill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Horrible... The trailer was super jerky. I am at a university and have plenty of bandwidth. With quicktime, it might stop if it ran out of buffer, but it would wait until it had enough data to not be annoying. Stopping once per couple of seconds for a half a second is terrible.

    On the MS homepage, if you click on the "download software" link, or something like that, a silverlight window pops up with a scroll bar, but it is not smart enough to allow my scroll wheel on my mouse to scroll that window separately. Perhaps this is a safari issue. Nope, firefox behaves the same way. Seems like something they could have done.
  • motang, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Wow...Microsoft doesn't have the beta for Linux...a shocker! They probably don't even know how to code for Linux. ;-)
    • bobmcsmith, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I didn't realize Microsoft had a common brain and could only learn things as an entire group...You really think they couldn't do a Linux version if they thought they could make money there? Anyway, Linux is a hostile environment to Microsoft filled with users who hate them and probably wouldn't use their products even if they produced Linux versions, so why spend money supporting a small (almost non-existant when you consider the anti-Microsoft sentiments in the Linux user base) group of users.
  • tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1the piano thing was kinda fun

    reminds me of going in music stores and playing around on the keyboards even tho i totally sucked ass

    just sittin there pounding keys and hoping something will sound cool
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I've tried this on a Mac w/Safari, IE 6 on XP, IE 7 on XP, and IE 7 on Vista, and it works perfectly in all of them.

    They've also announced that Opera support is next.

    Except for Linux, they're basically targeting the same platforms supported by Flash.

    Also, FYI, this used to be called WPF/e. (Windows Presentation Framework / everywhere.) The new name is stupid, but it's better than the old one.
  • samdu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Meh.
  • Civil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Yet another technology that will render non-computer browsers useless to a whole slew of new sites. I don't know how many pages I haven't been able to view on my phone just because they think it's cool to have an all-flash site.
    • rssej, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3sorry that i didnt design a website for your cellphone. some sites, especially sites designed for entertainment where clients may want something nonlinear, are best designed via flash. I dont think the works of Yugo Nakamura could be replicated in CSS and Ajax alone.
  • HardBap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@kris33

    Silverlight (formally WPF/E) is competition for Flex/Flash *IN* the browser

    WPF is competition for Apollo *OUTSIDE* the browser.

    A slight but important distinction.
    • kris33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the information! :)
      I guess the term "build and deploy desktop Rich Internet Applications" confused me
  • masterofNone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4y'know... i've seen the light... the silverlight... i'm going to stop developing in flash. i'm going to drop all my clients and go off and learn to develop rich web apps in silverlight. seriously... i'm sure the expereience will e so rewarding that i won't miss all of the paying jobs. who needs that installed base of flash browser pug-ins.

    i've always enjoyed working for the sake of working. paying jobs and end users are vastly over-rated.
  • defibrillator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't worry.. Silverlight is not SEO friendly.

    So, it's not going to be any more popular than Flash is. At the end of the day, real sites will still always be HTML.
  • tkambler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10For a company that can't get their own damn web browser to work properly, this seems like a bit of a stretch.
    • djg38, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This 80,000 full time employee company where the IE team is not the Silverlight team is probably busy at work on IE8, although even that as a priority is questionable when technologies like this take focus away from the browser. Any old container will work -- the real fun stuff is going to reside in the Silverlight code.
    • jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2My thoughts exactly. No way am I going to invest time in this. Who wants to download yet another plug in and fight incompatabilities. I've had my fill with IE's screwed up rendering of css. Untold, and I mean untold hours have been wasted with hacks and work arounds to get css to work correctly in IE. Microsoft will do things their own proprietary way, to hell with standards. In the Microsoft world if you went to the hardware store you'd be presented with a kajilliion different thread sizes for bolts, you'd have to bring a chart to cross match them and then when you got home with it it still wouldn't work right and you'd strip out the threads because you didn't have the special Microsoft screwdriver to put it in. Good grief, I can't believe people are nuts enough to buy into this silverlight crud. Haven't you had enough? We need standards dagnabit!
  • offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I saw the site when it first went online and so far I am not really impressed. But I may not have had the full version of Silverlight on my machine. When I went to the Microsoft navigation sample it was just a large JPEG image that did nothing. It gave me the impression that Silverlight did not do anything which I know is not true. This site really falls flat on that regard. I am waiting on some actually practical examples.
    • kheldorin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's at the right hand side by the navigation panel. It's a navigation demo afterall. Anyway, you made a good point. It blends so well with the web page, you can't even tell which parts are Silverlight, HTML or just a JPEG image. With Flash, it's pretty obvious. It's freaking amazing what programmers can do if they just OPTIMIZE their code.
  • coryjb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There is no way in hell I'm installing that on my Mac. I'd wait a good three years before it's ready for prime-time use and some of the bugs are fixed.
  • theWaterboy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Booo hissss!! Why publicize any Microsoft app? So they can ***** with web standards some more???
    • flag564, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wow, Im glad the usual crowd has showed up to show just how much they love the free market.

      The truth is that the only thing that is on display here is the typical "It's from Microsoft, so I hate it" bias that make some of you look petty and not very serious. Dont like Silverlight? Dont use it. But let the web public see if it is something that makes their web use better.

      People may actually take to it, just like they did with Flash, and Java.
    • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2There are web standards for plug-ins now? First I have every heard of it. No, I think if you RTFA or even found out what Silverlight is you would recognize that its a plug-in designed to run rich content on top of the web, like Flash. This way Microsoft doesn't have to try and fight with "web standards" that keep the web back in the 20th century.
  • Yegger, on 10/12/2007, -8/+209-f9-11-04-9d-74-e5-5b-d8-43-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
  • crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No Linux plugin... lame. They bill it as being cross-platform when it's just another attempt to lock people into products that MS approves of.
    • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I guess MS approves of Apple then.
    • crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep. They have to to avoid the whole monopoly thing.
  • arr3n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9714669-7.html
    Mono says Linux Silverlight by end of year.
  • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No linux support? Like every other f*ing thing, Linux gurus can write the support themselves.
    • kheldorin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It may not be "open source" but the information necessary to build a Linux plug-in is available. And that's always has been the Linux way hasn't it? They don't want to depend on MS to provide the support for them. They'd rather have the information so that the Linux community could develop the support themselves. I don't get what all the whining is about. You guys are full of contradictions.
  • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow.. Firefox Support!
  • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only if video output will can be display in full screen device.
  • KoZo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why haven't we learned? Microsoft will make this work in Mac, then a few years from now say, Sorry, Mac development costs is high, kill Silverlight.

    Where is IE for Mac now? where is WMP for Mac?
    • SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IE for Mac was killed when Steve Jobs decided to make his own browser (Safari) instead and bundle it with the OS. Ditto WMP & iTunes.

      This is not an unprecedented situation: Microsoft bundling IE with Windows was what killed off Netscape.
  • kmattso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will allow .net developers to create more interactive web sites without having to learn flash/actionscript crap. Instead they can use the same language they build all of their back end systems with, C#. I think Flash folks are and should be scared because I don't see how it can survive as well as it has in the past, so pick up that c#/.net book and start learning or you'll end up with your lips firmly planted on Adobe's cold dead ass. Quit being such fan boys and go with the flow, learn new stuff...trust me Adobe doesn't give a ***** what you do.

    As far as cross platform compatibility, as long as it works works on most browsers, which it does, who cares what the back end is.....NET or java or whatever...Enterprises standardize on a platform for whatever reason, and if it's .NET then that's their choice.
  • smoreorless, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Silverlight Books - http://astore.amazon.com/silverlightbooks-20
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.