locked
iPhone or iPad with Silverlight

    Question

  • The website that I login to in order to search work for orders and do billing for work requires the Silverlight plugin. There is not video involved just text. I am wondering if the stumbling block for compatibility between the iPhone and Silverlight is the video. If thats the case is there a beta I could try that would allow me to access this particular website so I could do billing and search work orders in the field via my iPhone? Thanks, Jason
    Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:45 PM

Answers

  • That's correct, Microsoft did demonstrate Silverlight video streaming on iPhone at PDC 2009 (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/microsoft-enables-silverlight-video-streaming-to-iphones.ars) but not via a Silverlight plug-in, instead adapting IIS7 to stream QuickTime video to an iPhone.

    It's extremely unfortunate though. Silverlight and iPad would enable a truly compelling offering for many Silverlight vendors, but Apple has a long history of proprietary hardware, software, and content offerings, and despite the criticism one has to say that under the visionary leadership of "His Steveness" the strategy has been very successful.

    All hope is on Bing then, with co-operation between Microsoft and Apple looking promising on that front.

     

    Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:02 AM

All replies

  • Silverlight is not supported by iPhone or iPad and the current limitation is political, not technical.  Apple simply does not want Plugin-based RIA applications (Flash, Silverlight) to run on iPhone, for they compete directly with App Store.  Even if you have the simplest Flash or SL app, say just Hello World, there is no easy way to make it run on iPhone...

    ... with the exception of this new scheme that Adobe came up with which is to combine the plugin with the Flash into one single iPhone app, which should then pass Apple's "no-plugin" app store criteria.  But then it won't exactly be a Flash app, but rather a Flash-like app that only runs on Apple -- meaning you cannot direct your user to the same site that other people access.  Mono (the open-source Silverlight port) has a similar concept, but it is a commercial product that you need to pay $ for, and you won't get an SL app either.

    So the short answer is no.  If Apple and Microsoft get cozy (Bing?) this may change.

    Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:13 PM
  • That's correct, Microsoft did demonstrate Silverlight video streaming on iPhone at PDC 2009 (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/microsoft-enables-silverlight-video-streaming-to-iphones.ars) but not via a Silverlight plug-in, instead adapting IIS7 to stream QuickTime video to an iPhone.

    It's extremely unfortunate though. Silverlight and iPad would enable a truly compelling offering for many Silverlight vendors, but Apple has a long history of proprietary hardware, software, and content offerings, and despite the criticism one has to say that under the visionary leadership of "His Steveness" the strategy has been very successful.

    All hope is on Bing then, with co-operation between Microsoft and Apple looking promising on that front.

     

    Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:02 AM
  • It is a real shame that the end user always get the short end of the stick when big corporation can't work together to make everything compatible. 

    It's extremely unfortunate though. Silverlight and iPad would enable a truly compelling offering for many Silverlight vendors, but Apple has a long history of proprietary hardware, software, and content offerings, and despite the criticism one has to say that under the visionary leadership of "His Steveness" the strategy has been very successful.

    However, I must agree with this statement. 

     

    Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:15 PM
  • ... Or Microsoft could just do the right thing and provide support for HTML 5.
    Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:34 AM
  • HTML 5 isn't ready yet...and when it is, will be way behind Silverlight. Wake up!

    Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:57 AM
  • @JHughesy: Well, genius, when do you consider HTML 5 'ready'? All the key, most visited sites in the world have and are implementing it as we speak. "Way behind Silverlight" is a hollow statement in the context of the question: "iPhone or iPad with Silverlight". HTML 5 is in use on all sites that support iPhone and iPad multimedia. That is the standard-compliant way to support multimedia on iPhone and iPad. MSFT is just late on the scene. So, it's not HTML 5 that's not ready. It's MSFT and coders like you that don't venture beyond the MSFT confines.
    Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:26 AM
  • I love my iPhone and iPad, but this flash and silverlight thing is ridiculous. Pita stop being an apple homer!
    Saturday, June 05, 2010 8:28 AM
  • There is opportunity on other community sites for cheesy, unprofessional remarks like this but here, let's just concentrate on technology. I think that holding my position on a Silverlight site will be a hazardous endeavor but tis kind of name-calling cheapens this site and berated it's moderators more Ghana it does even the contributor. Some of the most dastardly mistakes of Microsoft today have lots to do with disrespect for standards. Some sectors of Microsoft now get it. But apparently, there are many in the developer community that neither care a hoot or don't know enough to.
    Saturday, June 05, 2010 4:19 PM
  • Cheesy, unprofessional comments? Like "Well, genius...". Hypocrite.
    Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:07 PM
  • The W3C website indicates that a working draft has been published but no official release (still in development).

    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/

    Wednesday, June 16, 2010 3:40 PM
  • Well,

    here's the thing... 

    Everyone shot Microsoft down 'back in the day' over browser dominance and marketplace monopolies with Windows and IE.

    Isn't it time for this issue to be applied to Apple in true 'can opener' style?

    Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:15 AM
  • Well,

    here's the thing... 

    Everyone shot Microsoft down 'back in the day' over browser dominance and marketplace monopolies with Windows and IE.

    Isn't it time for this issue to be applied to Apple in true 'can opener' style?

     

     

    The courts found that Microsoft used Windows monopoly to leverage an unfair competition for IE over Netscape. Run that your argument by me again. You said the Apple equivalent is what? Promote HTML5 standard and not support Flash and Silverlight directly on mobile devices. Reasons: Power consumption and stability? Which other mobile computer gives you 10-12 hours of use on one charge? iPad does. Why do we have to look for someone to love or hate? Why can't we agree that corporations would want to get back value for investment at the expense of moving the world forward?

    This is the same reasons why phone companies would not promote VOIP technologiesj after over 12 years of commercial availability. By now, the concept of "long-distance/international calling should have been soooo 1990. But it's still here because someone is squeezing the bottom dollar from cross-atlantic switchboards when the same voice data could be transmitted over the internet (just as email) and surface in terminal city as a local call. Why do TEXT messages cost more than Yahoo/MSN/Google chat? Same problem.

    We are here defending SilverLight because for some of us, it's job security and for others it's a virgin investment. I can do it and I have a job because I can. But the world is asking us to give them a way forward from all this. Apple has historically risen to the occassion, biting the bullet and suggesting that enough is enough. They stopped before anyone else I know to stop putting floppies on their machines. They did the same for Serial ports, for VGA ports and now for Flash. We need someone to nudge the world forward.

    I am a Windows programmer/architect and in fact, a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner. But I am also a citizen of the world and I need to move forward.

    Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:10 PM
  • I am running an app from the app store;

    "Cloud Browse"   and it WORKS!

    you can get to your sites using MS Silverlight & Flash.

    You must try it.


    http://www.alwaysontechnologies.com/

    http://www.alwaysontechnologies.com/cloudbrowse/features/

    Monday, September 13, 2010 5:24 PM
  • Telling people that they can't ever use a browser plugin just slows down how fast the world can move forward. What happens when 2/3 years from now when people want some feature that HTML5 doesn't have, but HTML6 will in another decade, BOOM, plugins are back.  Thats why they came about in the first place. 

    As long as standards take 10 yrs to ratify and put in place (which will  be forever), plugins will remain prominent on the web.  Steve Jobs knows this! Apple is just using a popularity lead (but not sales lead) to try and lash out at people that have been whooping their @ $$ for years.  

    If anyone wants the world to really move forward we need to embrace and encourage the use of plugins so that the web can actually move forward at the pace of technological need.

    Friday, November 05, 2010 2:13 PM
  • HTML 5 is HTML 5.. I just hate the fact that this will force a transition to Javascript..  I think Java is the crappiest slowest language ever..  Every application and website including my phone all suck because of Java and Javascript.  With Sun selling it out to the Open Source crowd.. It's worse..

     

    Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:37 PM
  • Youtube already use it www.youtube.com/html5 html 5 supports all devices and support the same features, like condesials and if commands, it also supports h.264 video witch gives you acess to the highest quality with minimal data.
    Friday, November 26, 2010 6:08 PM
  • @JHughesy: Well, genius, when do you consider HTML 5 'ready'? All the key, most visited sites in the world have and are implementing it as we speak. "Way behind Silverlight" is a hollow statement in the context of the question: "iPhone or iPad with Silverlight". HTML 5 is in use on all sites that support iPhone and iPad multimedia. That is the standard-compliant way to support multimedia on iPhone and iPad. MSFT is just late on the scene. So, it's not HTML 5 that's not ready. It's MSFT and coders like you that don't venture beyond the MSFT confines.

    HTML 5 as a spec isnt finished so anything implemented now is open to change. If changes happen then we go back to our IE6 situation again.

    "Implementing it as we speak" is not the same as actually using it. Youtube video doesnt count as it's only a small part of the spec and isn't working on all browsers.

    HTML5 will be "ready" once the specification is complete and all browsers implement it in the same way.

    Monday, November 29, 2010 4:24 AM
  • The best Microsoft can do is to make a very responsive and smooth interface like iPad but with Silverlight and on a Proprietary Microsoft slate.  This would be the summum of Silverlight for many of us

    Not forgetting the great Internet Explorer + WCF kind of Client Server application we can do today with the SL technology.
    Making this would kill all the other Slate companies.

    But unfortunately we'll not see this in a near future.  Hope exists

    Monday, December 27, 2010 7:10 PM
  • It is too bad that Apple has made this business decision as SL is a wonderful platform and would look great on the IPad . but it is as it is and we must deal with the reality. It is unfortunate that MS and its hardware partners have been so badly out flanked on the tablet market. That is the real issue as there should be cool alternatives to the IPad. How MS has missed this and the phone market is beyond my belief.

    The WP7 phone is a wonderful product but 2 years too late! The same will be true of the windows based tablets unless cool alternatives appear soon. I hate using this word cool but Apple has made it necessary.

    I must say that I am a SL developer and love the platform but would gladly switch to HTML5 when I can do things like OO,  DI, Threading and using Linq for functional programming in my browser apps. This will happen but in which version of HTML5. witness the following:

    http://www.techtree.com/India/Features/Google_Drops_H264_in_Chrome_What_Does_it_Mean/551-114185-899.html

    so which video format do we use . I have seen the MS extension to javascript in IE9. They are good but will they become standards? if not HTML5 becomes a mess. we will have to support all the flavors  and that is why I love my Silverlight for Business apps and WP7.

    Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:20 PM
  • The WP7 phone is a wonderful product but 2 years too late

    Yes, It's 2 years late, and I couldn't say it better. But also XBox was supposed to have arrived late and nowadays it is increasing its popularity.

    I'm currently working in a big project as a Silverlight developer and I couldn't imagine doing the same with javascript and HTML5, I personally think that HTML5 will be a good language in the future, but now is lacking in many aspects, and it is a step back. Young developers don't realise that developing software it's not only to type hundreds of lines of code... the Architecture is probably the most important thing of your application and definetly .net and Visual Studio are good tools for it.

    About the main problem, It is also obvious that Apple wants to control every RIA application... and I think that these political decisions are against the company itself. Sooner or later they will realize that they are wrong.

    David

    http://metaevid.wordpress.com/

    Tuesday, February 15, 2011 7:11 PM
  • I agree, its a shame that SL is not supported on the IPhone/IPad but listen to my logic that I struggle with on this whole HTML 5 will be supported thing ...

    If HTML 5 is such a SL killer (which it certainly is not going to be) then wouldn't HTML 5 be just as much of a threat to Apples Application Store Business Model as say SilverLight?? I mean to say, if I could build HTML 5 solutions that could actually compete with the capabilities that SL 4.0 offers today, then wouldn't that be just as much of a threat to Apple as SL is?

    So given that arguement, there really has to be more at play here.

    I am highly certain that Microsoft could build a version of SL that would work well on the IPhone and IPad and I believe that responsibility surely must sit with Microsoft and not Apple to provide the appropriate version of SL plugin that would work.  Perhaps Microsoft is not really interested in this, as this would compete with its Windows 7 Phone and it's own App Store Model... Me thinks this is really what is now in play... 

    But then again, who really cares.  I am loving SL and I am still able to target almost 100% of internet user base that has a PC and is able to access the internet provided they are willing to install SL. I agree with the many posts I have read which essentially say, make it far easier to distribute this plug-in (embed into IE 9 and Windows OS and Azure) and we won't need to worry about the IPad/IPhone applicaiton community, those in the professional industry that want tablet PCs for doing serious work will eventually side with a platform that is RIA capable which clearly will be when Apple hits the wall.

    So I still going to build RIA for both the Business and common user in SL as its by far the easiest and most compelling Internet Content capable product that exists today.  HTML 5 is not even close in this capability and not even a standard.

    I agree with the others, who wants to build JScript just so I can painfully try to compete with what SL does without even breaking a sweat!

    SL Rocks!

    Friday, April 01, 2011 8:06 AM
  • Silverlight really shine.

    All is missing is a tablet.  Microsoft needs to listen.  It's imperative that we, MS lovers, have this fluid and nice SL or Surface tablet to enjoy the web everywhere we go with a SilverLIGHTWEIGHT tablet with a rockin interface.

     http://dotnet.uservoice.com/forums/4325-silverlight-feature-suggestions/suggestions/1626977-silverlight-tablet

     

    Friday, April 01, 2011 9:20 PM
  • It might be nice to think that html 5 will allow all the cool stuff that silverlight can, but that would be as ignorant as thinking that every browser (chrome/firefox/safari) other than IE will support all the features of html 5 and css 3

     

    Friday, April 08, 2011 9:32 AM
  • One thing to keep in mind is that zero browsers completely support CSS 2 and yet it is commonly used around the web.  So far as whether the various specifications and technologies under HTML 5 are flagged as "Done", "Done" versus "Recomendation" mean absolutely nothing to whether it's actually ready.  CSS 2 was created in 1997 and is still just a recommendation.  To this day it is not finished.  As a side note, after inspecting the CSS behind this very page - it is using CSS 2 properties and property values.

    If CSS 2 is in use and has worked for years now, I think that says something about the reality of whether it makes any difference whatsoever whether HTML 5 is flagged as "Done".

    Back to the topic of Silverlight, I think the issue isn't whether you can implement everything in HTML 5 that you could in Silverlight.  I think the issue is whether you actually need to implement it in Silverlight instead of ASP.net with HTML 5 front end code.  If all you have are text boxes, text blocks, combo boxes, buttons, etc. like most RIAs, why not use a technology that works everywhere like ASP.net serving up HTML and javascript?  What value are you providing your customers by going with a plugin instead?  I'm suprised to not see these asked more frequently.

    Saturday, May 07, 2011 3:12 AM
  • What value are you providing your customers by going with a plugin instead?  I'm suprised to not see these asked more frequently.

    Obviously you're not a developer. HTML, even a perfectly implemented v5, doesn't have databinding, extensible controls (err, scratch that, it barely has controls at all), a typed language, LINQ, and the list could go on for hours. I, as a real programmer, can do in an hour what it would take a html weenie a day. If my customers are my companies employees, I'm providing real solutions and not garbage that looks ugly and performs horribly. The reason the question isn't asked more frequently is that real programmers already know the answer.

    Saturday, May 07, 2011 4:06 AM
  • 2 thumbs up :)

     

    Saturday, May 07, 2011 6:06 AM
  • HTML, even a perfectly implemented v5, doesn't have databinding, extensible controls (err, scratch that, it barely has controls at all), a typed language, LINQ, and the list could go on for hours.

    ASP.net serves HTML and includes typed languages, LINQ, as well as access to the full .NET framework as opposed to the subset Silverlight is limited to.  I wouldn't advocate replacing Silverlight with nothing but static HTML pages on a server, that would obviously not work.

    Databinding makes life easier on the developer.  The end user neither cares nor notices the fact that it even exists.  That was the point I was making - Silverlight should not be used in a situation where it only provides value to your development team and ends up removing value from your end user.  Do "real" programers not care about user experience?

    If my customers are my companies employees, I'm providing real solutions and not garbage that looks ugly and performs horribly.

    In my opinion, a solution should be developed with the user as the primary focus - not the developer.  If the user needs a page filled with text boxes, combo boxes, and a button or two you would have to go out of your way and intentionally bog it down with javascript functions designed to run poorly in order to get it to perform horribly in a served up HTML page.  If you're talking about a 3D modelling application or something similarly graphic/interaction intensive then yes - Silverlight beats ASP.net serving HTML/Javascript.  How many RIA apps actually require that though?  How many do any sort of data visualization whatsoever?  Will your company's employees ever want or need to access these solutions from a mobile device not running a full version of windows?  Is it cost effective to completely rewrite the UI in that event?  I'm confused as to why you think a solution employing ASP.net is any more likely than a Silverlight application to look ugly and perform horribly.

    The reason the question isn't asked more frequently is that real programmers already know the answer.

    Silverlight is a solution, not the solution.  I would think the best thing to do would be to analyze your user's requirements, and likely future requirements and devise the best way to go from there.  If they want a desktop app, usually I'll give them something in WPF.  Web - ASP.net.  The only time I would consider Silverlight is when there are unique requirements for the UI.  Other than that, to me it's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

    Besides, I thought 'Real' developers write in assembly.  :P

    Saturday, May 07, 2011 6:40 AM
  • I wouldn't advocate replacing Silverlight with nothing but static HTML pages on a server, that would obviously not work.

    You're advocating replacing Silverlight with HTML and pretending that features that benefit the developer don't indirectly benefit the end user. And the fact that ASP.NET has access to the full .NET framework is completely irrelevant when ASP.NET's job is to output vomit, err HTML, to a web browser. Like I said, it's obvious you are not a developer.

    The end user neither cares nor notices the fact that it even exists.

    The end user also doesn't give a crap about standards. If the Silverlight plugin is already installed, and a Silverlight page just loads, the user could care less.

    ilverlight should not be used in a situation where it only provides value to your development team

    So my application having threading doesn't benefit the end user? How about when all my pages load more quickly because the UI logic has been downloaded once instead of every time? How about when I'm able to cache data in IsolatedStorage to speed up frequent requests? No benefit to the user? I could go on for hours like this.

    Do "real" programers not care about user experience?

    Why do you think we use Silverlight? HTML is a JOKE for user experience. Why do you think users PAY REAL MONEY for apps on their phones. Part of the reason is HTML is horrific for presentation. I'm working for a company now that is transitioning away from HTML apps internally to full WPF. My users LOVE the new user experience. Everything looks better and loads faster. New functionality is developed in half the time. Any real programmer knows that HTML apps present a crap user experience. The only thing you use HTML for is broad platform reach. That's its only redeeming value. You're advocating HTML for its great user experience? Seriously?

    If the user needs a page filled with text boxes, combo boxes, and a button or two you would have to go out of your way and intentionally bog it down with javascript functions designed to run poorly in order to get it to perform horribly in a served up HTML page.

    Aahahhahahaha. I guess you live in a world where there is no interaction between components. No standard validation. No custom validation. No custom behaviors. No user requests for fancy context menus. No background tasks. It's just a few textboxes and a submit button.

    How many RIA apps actually require that though?

    Um, RIA stands for Rich Internet App. Rich meaning advanced functionality. You're practically making the argument that HTML is fine for trivial apps, but nothing more.

    Will your company's employees ever want or need to access these solutions from a mobile device not running a full version of windows?

    Again, you clearly have no experience working with users. Absolutely NONE. Users want everything. Why do you suppose that developers are writing applications specifically for the iPad? IPad has a browser, why not just point users to your web site. Because web sites, limited by HTML, SUCK. End users want everything and a great experience. If you create two teams and tell one of them to build a solution in HTML and the other to build a native solution, when the those solutions hit the app store the native solution is going to CRUSH the HTML one. Users don't give a crap about standards or runtime, and HTML apps can't compare to native apps. Silverlight apps are pretty close to being native apps.

    Is it cost effective to completely rewrite the UI in that event?

    Who is talking re-writes? Starting from scratch a native app is always cheaper than HTML because the developers are more productive, but you just write that off as irrelevant.

    I'm confused as to why you think a solution employing ASP.net is any more likely than a Silverlight application to look ugly and perform horribly.

    Wow. You really have no clue what you are talking about do you? ASP.NET is a server technology which outputs HTML (a horrific presentation language.) Silverlight is a client technology derived from WPF designed to run in a browser. If you're asking that question, you've clearly got very little experience in the software industry. What is your background?

    If they want a desktop app, usually I'll give them something in WPF.

    If they want a desktop app? Users don't ask for a desktop app, that's an absurd notion. Users have requirements. If the requirements don't stipulate some sort of internet facing feature or Linux support, or it's just trivial functionality, only a fool would develop a solution in HTML. It just wouldn't be cost effective to do so.

    Saturday, May 07, 2011 2:49 PM
  • You're advocating replacing Silverlight with HTML and pretending that features that benefit the developer don't indirectly benefit the end user. And the fact that ASP.NET has access to the full .NET framework is completely irrelevant when ASP.NET's job is to output vomit, err HTML, to a web browser. Like I said, it's obvious you are not a developer.

    No, that’s not what I was suggesting.  If a feature benefits the developer and either does benefit the end user or has no effect on the end user then by all means – use it.  If it benefits the developer at the cost of the user then no, do not implement it.  I’m not sure where you are getting hung up on HTML with CSS and javascript being worthless as a presentation layer for web applications.  Silverlight version 1 was released in 2007.  It might shock you to learn that web applications where being successfully developed and used well before that time.

    The end user also doesn't give a crap about standards. If the Silverlight plugin is already installed, and a Silverlight page just loads, the user could care less.

    I agree.  I never even mentioned standards at all.  The end user does care that they can’t right click to cut, copy, or paste, click and drag the mouse over a textblock to select the text for copying, need to install a plugin if they don’t already have it, have to deal with scrollviewers that don’t work with the mouse wheel in anything other than internet explorer, etc.  These issues are all currently present in Silverlight.

     

    So my application having threading doesn't benefit the end user? How about when all my pages load more quickly because the UI logic has been downloaded once instead of every time? How about when I'm able to cache data in IsolatedStorage to speed up frequent requests? No benefit to the user? I could go on for hours like this.

    Your application wouldn’t need threading if it wasn’t in Silverlight.  If you were using Ajax, an average page full of text boxes and similar controls would load faster than Silverlight could ever load them.  An average HTML page, CSS file, and possibly an additional Javascript file combine to be far smaller than your average Silverlight XAP file.  On top of this, the browser renders them as they load and not after loading a plugin and then downloading the entire XAP as is the case in Silverlight.   After that, there’s no reason your data couldn’t be pulled via Ajax and the page itself being cached.  Another point to consider with performance is a situation where you don't control the end user's hardware.  You can always beef up your web servers.  Asking your users to upgrade so Silverlight control animations and page transitions don't stutter isn't always an option.

     

    Aahahhahahaha. I guess you live in a world where there is no interaction between components. No standard validation. No custom validation. No custom behaviors. No user requests for fancy context menus. No background tasks. It's just a few textboxes and a submit button.

    Again, Silverlight is only 4 years old.  Do you honestly believe there was no interaction between components, no validation, or no ability to customize the interactivity before 2007?  Are you suggesting you need Silverlight for this?  It’s also funny you mention the context menu - This was impossible before Silverlight 4 (released 2010) but has been easily doable in Javascript for about a decade if not longer.  On the subject of background tasks – the only reason those are useful to Silverlight is because Silverlight needs them.  HTML and Javascript don’t.  How much business logic are you trying to house in your presentation layer?

    Um, RIA stands for Rich Internet App. Rich meaning advanced functionality. You're practically making the argument that HTML is fine for trivial apps, but nothing more.

    If we are to define RIA as only apps that require rich graphics and interaction capabilities and ignore the fact that the “Rich” is just as often talking about the apps heavy use of data then the RIA market is an extremely small niche market indeed.  The vast majority of web applications out there fall firmly in the ‘trivial app’ category you have defined.

    Again, you clearly have no experience working with users. Absolutely NONE. Users want everything. Why do you suppose that developers are writing applications specifically for the iPad? IPad has a browser, why not just point users to your web site. Because web sites, limited by HTML, SUCK. End users want everything and a great experience. If you create two teams and tell one of them to build a solution in HTML and the other to build a native solution, when the those solutions hit the app store the native solution is going to CRUSH the HTML one. Users don't give a crap about standards or runtime, and HTML apps can't compare to native apps. Silverlight apps are pretty close to being native apps.

    Who is talking re-writes? Starting from scratch a native app is always cheaper than HTML because the developers are more productive, but you just write that off as irrelevant.

    Wow. You really have no clue what you are talking about do you? ASP.NET is a server technology which outputs HTML (a horrific presentation language.) Silverlight is a client technology derived from WPF designed to run in a browser. If you're asking that question, you've clearly got very little experience in the software industry. What is your background?

    A native app is not relevant to this discussion.  This is about the choice of platform once the fact that it must be a web application is already established.  If you opened two browsers and navigated to two apps, one Silverlight and one HTML, both built to do the same thing and look roughly the same, why would you prefer the Silverlight one?  What makes it more native to you?

    My point on the desire to have the web application on more types of devices is that if the web app was using HTML as a presentation layer you wouldn’t need to rewrite one line of code in the first place.  It would just work.  Remember, we’re talking about web apps – not desktop apps.

    To clear up the assumptions made about my background and experience, I have 4 years of experience developing web applications with ASP.net, 2 years of experience developing for WPF, a couple months worth of debugging Silverlight WCF service calls, and six months of wrestling with the UI Automation of a windowless Silverlight app.  I may not be from the days of C, but I’m not stupid either.

    If they want a desktop app? Users don't ask for a desktop app, that's an absurd notion. Users have requirements. If the requirements don't stipulate some sort of internet facing feature or Linux support, or it's just trivial functionality, only a fool would develop a solution in HTML. It just wouldn't be cost effective to do so.?

    “If they want a desktop app” means if their requirements are for a desktop app.  I didn’t mean “If they directly ask for a desktop app.”

    Sunday, May 08, 2011 2:01 AM
  • ’m not sure where you are getting hung up on HTML with CSS and javascript being worthless as a presentation layer for web applications.

    Every web application EVER developed SUCKS in comparison to a well written native version. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Are they functional?Sure. Human beings can function on eating raw meat, but unless your in a survival situation, no one does it (unless they're a masochist.)

    These issues are all currently present in Silverlight.

    Mostly implementation issues. If copy/paste was a requirement, the developer should have used read only textblocks. Etc, etc.

    Your application wouldn’t need threading if it wasn’t in Silverlight.

    Ok, I was going to respond to your post, but this statement demonstrates that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. I don't debate with clueless people because it's an exercise in futility. That's easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Wow.

    Sunday, May 08, 2011 3:10 AM
  • Ok, I was going to respond to your post, but this statement demonstrates that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. I don't debate with clueless people because it's an exercise in futility. That's easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Wow.

    The reason Silverlight needs threading is because Silverlight handles everything from business processes, to rendering, to accepting user input all on one thread and it does it all itself.  Without the use of another thread - if it’s parsing a WCF response or it’s performing a long running calculation, it’s not accepting input.  This is why Silverlight needs things like the Dispatcher and BackgroundWorkers.  They enable Silverlight to perform these actions on a separate thread and then marshal the updates back to the original UI thread keeping the UI in a state that doesn’t appear unresponsive.

    Javascript and the HTML DOM are completely different beasts.  User input is managed by the browser on its own thread.  Javascript execution and DOM rendering updates are also handled by the browser typically together on a separate thread.  If there is a function running it isn’t blocking me from doing anything I want with any control on the page.  Take Google Instant Search for example.  Its sending/receiving data in close to real-time and modifying the page as you type in your search phrase and yet there is absolutely no UI blocking whatsoever.

    Another factor to consider is where the business logic is running between the two technologies.  In a Silverlight app, you’ll likely have at least some running in the app itself.  With HTML/Javascript that is typically not the case as you would have that code running on your web server with the Javascript only serving to update or otherwise perform UI specific actions.

    You keep implying that my responses are misinformed and yet your responses don't include any specifics on the technology you're talking about.  This makes it difficult to determine where your expertise lies and why you may have formed the opinions that you have. Would you care to explain why you think HTML/CSS/Javascript needs user instantiable threading? 

    Sunday, May 08, 2011 5:54 AM
  • Guys, this was making life on the thread.  Go on,  It serves as a demonstration that some people know nothing about Silverlight and its potential.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    MRoC:

    Do "real" programers not care about user experience?

     

    Why do you think we use Silverlight? HTML is a JOKE for user experience. Why do you think users PAY REAL MONEY for apps on their phones. Part of the reason is HTML is horrific for presentation. I'm working for a company now that is transitioning away from HTML apps internally to full WPF. My users LOVE the new user experience. Everything looks better and loads faster. New functionality is developed in half the time. Any real programmer knows that HTML apps present a crap user experience. The only thing you use HTML for is broad platform reach. That's its only redeeming value. You're advocating HTML for its great user experience? Seriously?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    For me HTML is dead since April 2007 and I never, I repeat never wrote any javascript.  Will remain dead even thought it's used behind the scene.  I will never write any html or java BURK !!! What a joke.  And my opinion on user experience is the same as jackbond.

    If Silverlight is replaced or change name I don't care, however, bring us what it does the way it does it on the wagon of the futur where every single device will see the beauty of its results at least Microsoft's devices.  Standards ? Mhuaaaaaaa HTML/Java developers have so much work on code to make sure everybody sees your page correctly.

    Hope Silverlight will shine for a very long time at least for LOB which my work is based on full time now and a second hope to have it used on iPad or a future Microsoft tablet which I would buy instantly.  Of course not a Windows 8 tablet, but a device for multimedia like iPad.  What Microsoft needs to know now is that, many important people on compagnies want to access their app from everywhere with either a phone or a tablet. 

    A very huge percentage of USERS want to access a beatyful website where interaction is all over the place.  For me going to buy on amazon is dull or any buying sites today.  Having fun buying would probably make us buy more :)  Does this sound a bell ?

    Oh yes you can do it today with Flash ?  :) Flash hits the same wall on devices.  You can do it in html / Java / css ?  :) Go on and let me know when you'll have a site like this.  I'll be the first to visit it.

     

    Sunday, May 08, 2011 6:17 AM
  • Oh yes you can do it today with Flash ?  :) Flash hits the same wall on devices.  You can do it in html / Java / css ?  :) Go on and let me know when you'll have a site like this.  I'll be the first to visit it.

    This site is a reasonable example of some of the things modern HTML and Javascript are capable of:

    http://www.jswidget.com/ipaint.html

    A full fledged paint program using nothing but Javascript and HTML.  UI includes a Ribbon interface at the top.  I tested it out with the latest versions of IE, Chrome, and Safari and it worked on all three.

    http://jqueryui.com/home

    There are some examples on the JQuery site of some advanced UI interactivity that the JQuery javascript framework provides.

    Sunday, May 08, 2011 7:09 AM
  • Javascript execution and DOM rendering updates are also handled by the browser typically together on a separate thread.  If there is a function running it isn’t blocking me from doing anything I want with any control on the page.

    Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Write this into one of your functions while(true) {} and see what happens to your other controls. You're proving my point again and again.

    Its sending/receiving data in close to real-time and modifying the page as you type in your search phrase and yet there is absolutely no UI blocking whatsoever.

    Ahahahahahahahahaha. Because the browser networking APIs are asynchronous. Silverlight networking works exactly the same way(i.e. no dedicated thread created by user code), you'd know this if you actually were a real programmer. This is why I said it's not worth engaging you because your knowledge of browser implementation, XMLHTTP, threading, etc is just superficial.

    In a Silverlight app, you’ll likely have at least some running in the app itself.

    Yes, and that's what so great about it. No endless postbacks to retrieve trivial info.

    With HTML/Javascript that is typically not the case as you would have that code running on your web server with the Javascript only serving to update or otherwise perform UI specific actions.

    A horrible design decision required due to the ineptitude of HTML/JavaPuke. And you think that's a good thing? Rolls eyes. You're just so out of your depth.

    You keep implying that my responses are misinformed and yet your responses don't include any specifics on the technology you're talking about.

    Sorry, I'm fairly confident programmers are having absolutely no problem understanding me.

    Would you care to explain why you think HTML/CSS/Javascript needs user instantiable threading?

    Aahahahahahahaha. Why don't you just ask me to explain what threads are and why they are useful? I'll give you one example. Let's say you wanted to create an application that told you whether a word was legal to play in scrabble. After you researched a bit, you'd find that their is a certain dictionary file available on the internet that contains all the legal words. Now in a first pass at implementing this as a web app, you might create a web service where you would pass a word and the service would return true or false if it was legal to play. Not too bad, but what if you want to make this service available offline? Well, now you're screwed with HTML because offline, what's that? Silverlight, um, no problem. But lets say you got over that hurdle, you need to have that list of words stored on the client because web services are unavailable. After you do a bit more research, you discover Directed Acyclic Word Graphs (DAWG) which are a very efficient way to do word lookups. Only problem is, loading a DAWG can take several seconds depending on the size of the DAWG and the speed of your machine. Now in a HTML app with no threading, perhaps you'd build your DAWG the first time someone requested a word. Since there is no threading in HTML, that has to happen on the UI thread, and your UI just locks up. Not very nice. In Silverlight I just put that in a background thread and the user never notices. But wait, unless you roll ALL the logic of your HTML application (that's an oxymoron) into a single page, as soon someone leaves that page and comes back, oops, shucks, need to build that DAWG all over again. With Silverlight, I just make it a static variable and it's alive as long as I want it to be.

    And you're going to make the argument that HTML "apps" are more user friendly? What reality are you living in? You know what app stores for phones are? They're virtual stores where people go to BUY, as in pay actual money for applications. They might as well be called, "HTML sucks so bad that people are willing to spend money not to use HTML applications" stores. Amazon has an app for my Windows 7 phone that lets me buy stuff. Do you think they're using the accelerometer or GPS to improve my shopping experience? Not at all. Amazon wrote a dedicated app for my phone to enhance my experience. Why didn't they just send me to amazon.com in my phone's browser? Because HTML/browsers SUCK. Ditto for ESPN. Ditto for Facebook. Ditto for Fandango. And on and on and on.

    Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:33 PM
  • A full fledged paint program using nothing but Javascript and HTML. 

    That looks like a full fledged paint program to you? Seriously? That looks like the paint program included with Windows 3.1. When I click save, where is it saved? Where is the print button? Where are the effects? Where are the layers? Where are the context menus? Why does't control-z actually undo anything? When I click the magnify glass, why doesn't it zoom. Why does it suck up so much CPU? Why did the page become unresponsive after I used it for under a minute?

    That app is a toy that some HTML5 zealot wrote to prove how great HTML5 is. The only thing it proved was how much HTML5 is still a complete JOKE. No one is going to use that for ANYTHING.

    Sunday, May 08, 2011 4:46 PM
  • That looks like a full fledged paint program to you? Seriously? That looks like the paint program included with Windows 3.1. When I click save, where is it saved? Where is the print button? Where are the effects? Where are the layers? Where are the context menus? Why does't control-z actually undo anything? When I click the magnify glass, why doesn't it zoom. Why does it suck up so much CPU? Why did the page become unresponsive after I used it for under a minute?

    That app is a toy that some HTML5 zealot wrote to prove how great HTML5 is. The only thing it proved was how much HTML5 is still a complete JOKE. No one is going to use that for ANYTHING.

    Yes, it looks like a full fledged paint program, not a full fledged Photoshop program.

    If we are basing technology decisions off tech demos, Silverlight is good for nothing more than an endless stream of carousel interfaces that do nothing more than show a stream of photos.  Of course, there's also the very useful 3D cube with images painted on each side - that thing is just dripping with business value.  And Gel buttons - tons of them.  

    If you'd like a real world example there's the netflix Silverlight player that regularly gives me out of memory errors when a mere 2 gigs of my 8 are actually spoken for and forces a complete browser cache clear before it will perform properly again.

    Google maps, Bing maps, youtube, Google Instant Search - just plain old HTML and Javascript for the front end UI and they all work flawlessly.

    So far as why it performed poorly on your machine, what browser are you using.  Which version? 

    Also, what work experience have you had with ASP.net?  With Silverlight?  I really don't understand how you could have any practical experience with any of the technologies you are dismissing or praising as you don't seem aware of any of the technical details.

    Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 AM
  • Ahahahahahahahahaha. Because the browser networking APIs are asynchronous. Silverlight networking works exactly the same way(i.e. no dedicated thread created by user code), you'd know this if you actually were a real programmer. This is why I said it's not worth engaging you because your knowledge of browser implementation, XMLHTTP, threading, etc is just superficial.
    Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Write this into one of your functions while(true) {} and see what happens to your other controls. You're proving my point again and again.

    I'll admit I was mistaken on that.  It was my understanding that the message pump and javascript execution were performed on separate threads but I suppose that's not the case.

    Ahahahahahahahahaha. Because the browser networking APIs are asynchronous. Silverlight networking works exactly the same way(i.e. no dedicated thread created by user code), you'd know this if you actually were a real programmer. This is why I said it's not worth engaging you because your knowledge of browser implementation, XMLHTTP, threading, etc is just superficial.

    This "real programmer" business you are caught up on really isn't flattering to you.  All you are really demonstrating is just how unprofessional you are capable of behaving.  If your responses are going to continue along this vein then this is my last response.  I'm interested in discussing the topic, not each other.

    Back on topic, you didn't respond to my point.  Instant search isn't just the async communication.  It's the updating of the DOM.  It takes the information, modifies the UI you are presented with, and does it all without blocking the UI.

    Yes, and that's what so great about it. No endless postbacks to retrieve trivial info.

    With that you also get either duplicated code in both your app and your server which goes against best practices or placing trust in the client app and hoping nothing goofy happens on the end you have no control over which also goes against best practices.

    A horrible design decision required due to the ineptitude of HTML/JavaPuke. And you think that's a good thing? Rolls eyes. You're just so out of your depth.

    Do you have much experience with client/server application development?  You can't trust the client.  By placing more logic in the client, you are increasing area of your application which you can do nothing but merely hope no one breaks or otherwise tampers with. 

    Here's a fun fact about Silverlight, the app you develop, compile, and publish is nothing more than a zip file downloaded to the user's machine.  Anyone can unzip, and inject whatever they want into your app's manifest and in turn, get that code executed in place of or beside your app.  This is why you do not want logic residing on the client.  This also means aside from code obfuscation tools, your IP is wide open if that is a concern.

    Aahahahahahahaha. Why don't you just ask me to explain what threads are and why they are useful? I'll give you one example. Let's say you wanted to create an application that told you whether a word was legal to play in scrabble. After you researched a bit, you'd find that their is a certain dictionary file available on the internet that contains all the legal words. Now in a first pass at implementing this as a web app, you might create a web service where you would pass a word and the service would return true or false if it was legal to play. Not too bad, but what if you want to make this service available offline? Well, now you're screwed with HTML because offline, what's that? Silverlight, um, no problem. But lets say you got over that hurdle, you need to have that list of words stored on the client because web services are unavailable. After you do a bit more research, you discover Directed Acyclic Word Graphs (DAWG) which are a very efficient way to do word lookups. Only problem is, loading a DAWG can take several seconds depending on the size of the DAWG and the speed of your machine. Now in a HTML app with no threading, perhaps you'd build your DAWG the first time someone requested a word. Since there is no threading in HTML, that has to happen on the UI thread, and your UI just locks up. Not very nice. In Silverlight I just put that in a background thread and the user never notices. But wait, unless you roll ALL the logic of your HTML application (that's an oxymoron) into a single page, as soon someone leaves that page and comes back, oops, shucks, need to build that DAWG all over again. With Silverlight, I just make it a static variable and it's alive as long as I want it to be.

    Both Gmail and MobileMe offer offline access to all of my mailboxes in a web interface.  Google docs are all done with HTML and Javascript.  Sure, they aren't as complicated as your scrabble example but I think they get the point across.

    Monday, May 09, 2011 4:42 AM
  • Yes, it looks like a full fledged paint program, not a full fledged Photoshop program.

    Uh huh. Well that, combined with your previous demonstration of complete lack of knowledge regarding HTML and threading, pretty much puts an end to any sort of credibility you may have had. Here's a little experiment for you. In one of your precious html pages, go ahead and handle a button click event and call alert('wait a minute') and tell me how many other browser tabs are responsive. After that perhaps you'll have a better understanding of browser threading. Ahahahahahahaha.

    If we are basing technology decisions off tech demos

    LMAO, it was YOUR demo.

     

    Silverlight is good for nothing more than an endless stream of carousel interfaces that do nothing more than show a stream of photos.

    Here we go, someone has snapped.

    If you'd like a real world example there's the netflix Silverlight player that regularly gives me out of memory errors

    Ah, the source of the hidden rage is revealed.

    Google maps, Bing maps, youtube, Google Instant Search - just plain old HTML and Javascript for the front end UI and they all work flawlessly.

    Youtube is just plain old html? I'm running google's browser and youtube still looks like it depends on Flash. If html is so cross platform, why do google, bing, and youtube all have native apps for every platform? You seem to ignore that question EVERY TIME. As for working flawlessly, the html versions all look like crap to me, especially bing maps when compared to the Silverlight version.

    So far as why it performed poorly on your machine, what browser are you using.  Which version? 

    Does it matter? Oh wait, or is that basically an admission that HTML performance largely depends on which browser you're using. I ran it in Chrome. Your expectations for a paint program are pretty low if that's a full fledged paint program to you. I tell you what though, let survey 100 people and ask them if a full fledged paint program ought to be able to print.

    Also, what work experience have you had with ASP.net? 

    I've worked with ASP.NET since v1. While interviewing potential hires I've thrown out the obligatory page life cycle questions. I remember thinking how great it was when they introduced UpdatePanels. For a time it was always a treat when they'd release updates to the AjaxControlToolkit. At one place I worked, they were relying on a third party autocomplete box. Unfortunately, that third party never released an update for ASP.NET v2, so if I wanted to upgrade to v2 (to get things like master pages) I had to implement my own autocomplete textbox(this was before it was added to the toolkit.) My favorite event in ASP.NET is the GridView's RowDataBound, it's always so helpful when customizing a grid's output. Why mention all this? Because I've been working with this stuff for YEARS, and quite frankly I've forgotten more of this stuff then you'll ever learn.

    With Silverlight?

    Let's see, first Silverlight multiplayer game, check (that's the link to Khet below.) Silverlight port of ZMachine so I could play Zork, ever heard of that JUNIOR? Little Mahjong. Recently got a Microsoft community award for my contributions here. Oh, and a nice little scrabble app for Windows 7 phones. And those are just my side projects. Professionally I work with WPF all day.

    I really don't understand how you could have any practical experience with any of the technologies you are dismissing or praising as you don't seem aware of any of the technical details

    I'm not aware to the technical details? In one of your recent posts you educated us regarding browsers and threading. If was a nice little rundown, the only problem was, it was COMPLETE FICTION. You're the one admitting your technical mistakes. You've admitted just COMPLETELY FABRICATING stuff whole cloth, and you're acusing me of not being aware of the technical details? Wow, that's chutzpah. Just to be clear, from a technical perspective, not opinion, what have I stated incorrectly?

    Monday, May 09, 2011 4:54 AM
  • I'll admit I was mistaken on that. 

    Ok, you lied to strengthen your argument.

    I suppose that's not the case.

    You suppose that's not the case? It's not supposition, it's not a subject for debate.

    All you are really demonstrating is just how unprofessional you are capable of behaving.

    I'm dismissive of people who make stuff up, aka LIE.

    I'm interested in discussing the topic

    Like I said previously, it's not worth discussing with you because 1) You lie 2) Your technological knowledge is insufficient 3) you have a hidden rage against Silverlight that you revealed in a prior post.

    nstant search isn't just the async communication.  It's the updating of the DOM.  It takes the information, modifies the UI you are presented with, and does it all without blocking the UI.

    Here we go again. The asynchronous callback updates the Ui on the UI thread. Again, you are wrong. This is not subject to debate or supposition. Try it for yourself. Put an alert or a while(true) in an AJAX callback and the UI will be blocked. Case closed. End of story. All work updating the DOM is done on the UI thread. That's how Windows work. That's how the browser APIs work. I can't seriously believe you questioned MY experience. How can you NOT know this if you are a web programmer?

    With that you also get either duplicated code in both your app and your server which goes against best practices

    We're not talking about the UI layer enforcing security here, that would be a mistake. Ideally an application would download all its UI logic a single time and simply retrieve the data it needs via web services. Theoretically you could do that with a single web page, but NOBODY writes pages that way. As for your best practice nonsense, you're telling us that your web sites don't do ANY client data validation because that would duplicate your best practice. You must write some pretty horrible web sites. Have you written Microsoft and asked them to remove the ASP.NET validation controls because aren't those just asking for trouble? After all, you are going to have to validate the data again on the server before you insert it into the database? That is just duplication right? Oh wait, maybe you just validate on the server when the user submits, your users must love that. But maybe I'm wrong. In fact, tomorrow I'm going to remove all the primary key contraints in my database and just leave it to the ASP.NET code behinds to enforce that stuff. Why duplicate logic right? Rolls eyes.

    By placing more logic in the client, you are increasing area of your application which you can do nothing but merely hope no one breaks or otherwise tampers with.

    Uh huh. All client logic is bad. Again, you're questioning my experience?

    Here's a fun fact about Silverlight, the app you develop, compile, and publish is nothing more than a zip file downloaded to the user's machine.

    You think this is news to me?

    Anyone can unzip, and inject whatever they want into your app's manifest and in turn, get that code executed in place of or beside your app.  This is why you do not want logic residing on the client.

    Ahahahaha. I can't believe you are making this argument. The whole point of HTML5 is to make the client more versatile, which tada, will result in more logic on the client. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4kqs-BvDnw

    This also means aside from code obfuscation tools, your IP is wide open if that is a concern.

    Oh my god no. They're going to see that I've bound my text and combo boxes to a view model which submits the results to a web service. I'm quaking that they're going to rip off my code. Feel free to search the Silverlight forums for my opinion on obfuscation. Obfuscation doesn't protect against a determined hacked. Unfortunately the only thing you can do to protect your intellectual property is to hire a lawyer.

    Both Gmail and MobileMe offer offline access to all of my mailboxes in a web interface.

    Really, without any sort of plugin? Caution trick question. Or maybe you already know the answer since you slying said "web interface."

    Sure, they aren't as complicated as your scrabble example but I think they get the point across.

    HTML, including v5 cripples programmers. I mentioned the static variable in the scrabble app for a reason. Is that something that the HTML committees are even addressing? Never mind, since you don't even know how threading works, it's questionable whether you even know what a static variable is.

     

    Monday, May 09, 2011 5:30 AM
  • You've admitted just COMPLETELY FABRICATING stuff whole cloth, and you're acusing me of not being aware of the technical details? Wow, that's chutzpah. Just to be clear, from a technical perspective, not opinion, what have I stated incorrectly?

    No, I admited to being wrong.  I didn't fabricate it - it was my understanding that browsers handle javascript/rendering the DOM and messages on separate threads.  I didn't make it up, I was merely wrong.

    So far as your technical commentary, up until the last post or two you didn't mention anything of a technical nature at all - it has all only been opinion.

    If anything, you are clearly biased to Silverlight.  For each problem I mention regarding Silverlight you either gloss over as irrelevant or selectively don't respond to that statement. 

    In windowless mode, the Silverlight scrollviewer does not respond to mouse wheel input on anything other than IE.

    Silverlight code that runs on the client can be modified by an external process (malicious or not) before the browser even renders it.  Any IP included in your SL code is wide open to anyone, including competitors.

    The current version of Silverlight as a browser plugin is unavailable on anything other than Windows and OSX.  If your users desire access from any other device you will be rewriting the UI.  If this is the case, why not just go with the cross platform solution in the first place?

    Here we go, someone has snapped.

    Ah, the source of the hidden rage is revealed.

    I haven't snapped.  Most tech demos online are crap - and they mostly consist of carosel UIs that no one should use or silly 3D objects with images mapped to them.  So far as tech demos go, I think that one was pretty nice.  My point is that if you think there isn't just as much junk Silverlight out there I'd be happy to send you a few links.

    So far as my hidden rage, again no - no rage here.  I just think you need to see the big picture.  If you think Silverlight isn't capable of being just as bad as you claim HTML to be, you might want to remove your rose colored glasses and take a peek around at the netflix forums.

    Youtube is just plain old html?

    Yes, unless you have flash installed (I did forget as I run a flash blocker).  If you don't, it's just plain old html and it works just as good as the flash version.

    You seem to ignore that question EVERY TIME.

    So lets address it now.  Silverlight is a web and WP7 technology.  If I want a native app, I'm writing it in either Objective-C for OSX or iOS, C# with WPF for Windows, Java for Android, or Silverlight for WP7.  Silverlight is only native on WP7.

    OOB mode is not native, it's still being hosted (by SLLauncher.exe IIRC).

    Why mention all this? Because I've been working with this stuff for YEARS, and quite frankly I've forgotten more of this stuff then you'll ever learn.

    You stay classy San Fransisco.

    Monday, May 09, 2011 5:36 AM
  • Like I said previously, it's not worth discussing with you because 1) You lie 2) Your technological knowledge is insufficient 3) you have a hidden rage against Silverlight that you revealed in a prior post.

    Now you're just being ridiculous.  I didn't lie, I was wrong.  There's a differance that is aparently lost on you.  Sorry, but I'm out.  The arrogance and insulting tone present in your posts aren't worth the aggrevation.

    Monday, May 09, 2011 5:43 AM