|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03478.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3478<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
Is this the approach you want to take? Or would you prefer
a simple
check and refuse to run? Thats a lot easier but clearly
quite
defeatable. I'll come and talk to you about it.
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
>From bradsi Fri Sep 27 22:44:35 1991<br />
To: philba<br />
Subject: dr<br />
Date: Fri Sep 27 22:44:10 1991
</p>
<p>
can you tell me specifically what we're going to do to
bind ourselves closer to ms dos? since you haven't been
replying to
my messages, I do n't know how to interprety your silence.
Let me emphasize the importance; ibm is going to annoucne
the
drdos deal at comdex (almost 100% certain).
</p>
<p>
OK?
</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
#######################################################
605<br />
From bradsi Sat Sep 28 11:35:49 1991<br />
To: joachimk peterbra steveb<br />
Cc: alexn jeffl jonro markbu richab richardf ronh
teresach<br />
Subject: Re: Compaq Windows status<br />
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 91 11:35:40 PDT
</p>
<p>
we cannot have compaq sell Win+DOS product that is cheaper
than what
we sell windows alone for. even if it's works just on
compaq
machines, we thus tell the market that we are dramatically
overcharging for windows. and our retail business goes
down the
tubes. if they want to offer their dos, which includes
windows, for
$200, then we're talking.
</p>
<p>
yes, I want the compaq business but not to give to them
for nothing
and kill my retail business, too.
</p>
<p>
they realize they are falling behind and they have to do
something
to fix it.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
606<br />
From bradsi Sat Sep 28 11:40:25 1991<br />
To: karlst lisacr<br />
Subject: Re: file open/save as changing dir behavior<br />
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 91 11:40:23 PDT
</p>
<p>
ok. include 123/w. let us know.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
607<br />
From bradsi Sat Sep 28 11:42:13 1991<br />
To: jimall paulma<br />
Subject: RE: sys mgt<br />
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 91 11:42:11 PUT
</p>
<p>
ok they are yours.
</p>
<p>
the winlogin schedule has always been dec-jan. should
finish dec but
if it stretches into jan, you shouldn't count on them jan
1.
<p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
>From jimall Sat Sep 28 11:39:04 1991<br />
To: bradsi paulma<br />
Subject: RE: sys mgt<br />
Date: Sat Sep 28 11:38:28 PDT 1991
</p>
<p>
I have been assuming ericpe was coming to win4 by year
end. It sounds
like this winlogin is slipping. I will be happy to take
tedst too.
</p>
<p>
jim
</p>
<div style="border-left: solid 1px black; padding-left:
0.5em">
<p>
>From bradsi Fri Sep 27 10:10:57 1991<br />
To: jimall paulma<br />
Subject: sys mgt<br />
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 91 10:08:19 PDT
</p>
</div>
</div>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03480.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3480<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<table>
<tr><td>message during copy files</td><td>marcw,
andyhi</td></tr>
<tr><td>swapfile
rework</td><td>craigc</td></tr>
<tr><td>machine config.
tuning</td><td>paulke</td></tr>
<tr><td>lim compatibility
work</td><td>mikecole</td></tr>
<tr><td>dlg for setup from
windows</td><td>marcw</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
USER work:
</p>
<table>
<tr><td>SendMessage
revalidation</td><td>mikesch</td></tr>
<tr><td>Log error
conditions</td><td>sankar</td></tr>
<tr><td>gp fault
cleanup</td><td>neilk</td></tr>
<tr><td>layer size, speed
opts</td><td>neilk</td></tr>
<tr><td>Fix edit ctrl
msgs</td><td>sankar</td></tr>
<tr><td>change api's - hInst/hMod
</td><td>jeffbog</td></tr>
<tr><td>Local memory
validation</td><td>jont</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
GDI/T2 work
</p>
<table>
<tr><td>VDMX support</td><td>gunterz,
jeanp</td></tr>
<tr><td>Font file
preload</td><td>amitc</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cleanup font cache
code</td><td>gunterz</td></tr>
<tr><td>Finish remove glbl lock</td><td>kensy, davidw,
amitc</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cauplete Fontmapper
work</td><td>davidw</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
Other Critical Work
</p>
<table>
<tr><td>Bambi in build
50</td><td>philba</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
p.s. By now, everyone should have seen rickem's mail
regarding PUCUS. We'll
need to spend some time today fixing our source tree after
Friday's crash.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
329<br />
From davidcol Mon Sep 30 08:24:05 1991<br />
To: karlst philba<br />
Subject: supported DOSes<br />
Cc: bradsi<br />
Date: Mon Sep 30 08:23:47 1991
</p>
<p>
It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only
runs
on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it. I checked with
legal,
and they are working up some text we are suppose to
display
if someone tries to setup or run Windows on a alien
operating
system. We are suppose to give the user the option of
continuing after the warning. However, we should surely
crash
at some point shortly later.
</p>
<p>
Now to the point of this mail. How shall we proceed on the
issue
of making sure Win 3.1 requires MS DOS. We need to have
some
pretty fancy internal checks to make sure we are on
the right one. Maybe there are several very sophisticated
checks so the competitors get put on a treadmill. Aaronr
had
some pretty wild ideas after 3 or so beers, earleh has
some
too. We need to make sure this doesn't distract the team
for
a couple of reasons 1) the pure distraction factor 2) the
less
people know about exactly what gets done, the better.
</p>
<p>
Please advise.
</p>
<p>
#######################################################
330<br />
From paulma Mon Sep 30 08:29:45 1991<br />
To: carriet<br />
Subject: Harel Kodesh<br />
Cc: andyp bradsi daveth karenh nathanm<br />
Date: Mon Sep 30 08:29:22 1991
</p>
<p>
This is a good guy whom I know who works at Motorola
Mobile Data in
Bothell. He is a D12/D13 developer/development manager -
smart and
lots of energy.
</p>
<p>
He is tired of "six sigma" bureaucracy at Motorola, and
fact that
Moto as a company is strapped for cash to invest in its
products -
so he is looking at offers from Slate and Rational in the
Bay Area. He
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03488.pdf
<p>
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3488<br />
Comes v. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
From richab Sun Nov 3 09:01:12 1991<br />
To: davidcol<br />
Subject: warning for other DOSes in Win 3.1<br />
Date: Sun Nov 3 09:00:38 1991
</p>
<p>
I'd prefer that we tone the message in the same manner
that we
would if ve were writing about an application or utility
that
we didn't test with.
</p>
<p>
I assume that this is a setup message (or is this a
runtime message?)
What do you think about something like this?
</p>
<p>
"Setup has detected that the the operating system
sofetware
running on this machine is not MS-DOS. Microsoft Windows
was
designed to run with MS-DOS versions 3.1 and higher.
Windows
is tested running on MS-DOS on a vast variety of machine
and
peripheral configurations (see system requirements and
hardward
compatibility list for details). Running Microsoft
Windows on
an operating system other than genuine MS-DOS could cause
defective and or unpredictable performance and is at the
customer's sole risk."
</p>
<p>
What think. something like this.
</p>
<p>
Everyone will see through our excessive rudeness if we go
with the
rude message.
</p>
<p>
rich<br />
***<br />
>From davidcol Thu Oct 31 15:08:10 1991<br />
To: richab<br />
Subject: warning for other DOSes in Win 3.1<br />
Date: Thu Oct 31 15:07:24 1991
</p>
<p>
Here is the current wording of the warning. You had
some concerns about it being to harsh. Please take
a look and give me some specific recommendations.
</p>
<p>
----
</p>
<p>
THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE THAT YOU ARE USING IS
NOT MS-DOS! Microsoft Windows is desiged to run and
is tested only on MS-DOS 3.1 and higher. Please see
"Systems REquirements" in the Windows documentation for
details.
</p>
<p>
Use of an operating system other than MS-DOS with
Microsoft
Windows may void the product's warranty, and may result in
defective and/or unpredictable performance for which
Microsoft
cannot be responsible. FURTHER, USE OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS
WITH
AN OPERATING SYSTEM OTHER THAN MS-DOS IS AT YOUR SOLE
RISK.
</p>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
[Editor's note: An incomplete set of these have already
been submitted. This draft completes the transcript.]
http://groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/7000/PX07871.pdf
<p>
Plaintiff's Exhibit 7871<br />
Comes V. Microsoft
</p>
<p>
<b>From:</b> Ben Slivka<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 23, 1997 10:21
PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Mark Lucovsky<br />
<b>Subject:</b> FW: updated: *proposed* Microsoft API
Strategy slides
</p>
<p>
Mark, long time no see!
I've been learning about Java, and I've got what might
appear to be a pretty radical proposal for Windows & Java.
I would love to discuss this with you at your earliest
convenience!
I'm meeting with natbro, bshah, deb black Friday,
10:30-11:30, 26N/2179 - feel free to crash this
meeting!<br />
Thanks, bens
</p>
<p>
---Original Message---<br />
<b>From:</b> Ben Slivka<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 23, 1997 10:14
PM<br />
<b>To:</b> John Ludwig; Paul Gross; Bob Muglia;
Brad Silverberg; Jim Allchin (Exchange); Nat Brown; Bharat
Shah (NT);
Deborah Black; Tod Nielsen; Brad Lovering;
Jon DeVaan; Steven Sinofsky; Aaron Contorer; Thomas
Reardon; Richard McAniff<br />
<b>Subject:</b> updated: *proposed* Microsoft API
Strategy slides
</p>
<p>
Please feel free to send me any and all feedback.
In constrast to my last attempt, this time I tried to
answer the key questions up front.
I understand the focus on Java may strike some as
excessive, but I've been studying this issue for four
months, and this
is where my head is at today. Please fire away!<br />
Thanks, bens
</p>
<p>
API Strategy
(1-24-97).ppt
</p>
<h1>Microsoft API Strategy:<br />
Java is our Destiny</h1>
<h2>bens</h2>
<h2>The Windows Platform</h2>
<ul>
<li>Challenges
<ul>
<li>Maintain Windows marketshare and revenue</li>
<li>Surf the Java wave</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Opportunities
<ul>
<li>Improve software developer productivity
(for our customers and ourselves!)</li>
<li>Position Windows for the 21st Century</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Java is the Answer</h2>
<ul>
<li>Java improves developer productivity
<ul>
<li>Java is to C/C++ as C is to ASM</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Java improves software scalability
(client and server) for the 21st Century</li>
<li>Java supercedes the DLL architecture
of Windows</li>
<li>Java is a wonderful opportunity to
modernize and enhance Windows</li>
</ul>
<h2>Three Big Questions</h2>
<ul>
<li>Will Java ever match the execution
speed of C/C++? <i>we will get close</i></li>
<li>What about Cross Platform?
<i>a red herring</i></li>
<li>Doesn't this make Windows a
commodity (drive MSFT[down])? <i>no</i></li>
</ul>
<h2>Java Execution Speed</h2>
<ul>
<li>Issues:
<ul>
<li>Raw Java code speed</li>
<li>Garbage collection overhead</li>
<li>Overhead of calling Native OS services</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Solutions:
<ul>
<li>Optimizing Java compiler produces x86 code</li>
<li>Extensive GC work, Windows kernel changes</li>
<li>Rewrite some OS services in Java (AFC)</li>
<li>Simplicity of language permits sophisticated
optimization and tuning (code and data Lego,
whole program analysis)</li>
<li>May get "PCode" benefits (working set, load
time)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Java Execution Speed (2)</h2>
<ul>
<li>Real Data /we have lots of ideas to try/
<ul>
<li>LZX Decompressor (2.17 x slower)
<ul>
<li>41.62 seconds -- C
<li>90.30 seconds -- Java
</ul>
</li>
<li>Garbage Collection
<ul>
<li>[need #s from pdussud]</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>What About Cross Platform?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Application Foundation Classes
<u>run on any browser, OS, CPU,</u>
but are <u>optimized for Win32</u></li>
<li>This is a developer safety blanket for
our customers and ourselves
<ul>
<li>Cross platform apps will never be as
rich as Windows apps -- it's our job to
ensure this tautology remains true!</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>We need to do a better job of cross
platform than our competitors!</li>
</ul>
<h2>Doesn't this Kill Windows?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Windows is more than just an API set
<ul>
<li>Setup, device drivers, plug&play, installed
base
of applications, networking, utilities</li>
<li>At Home: Rich Multimedia is key, Windows
and DirectX are the winners</li>
<li>At Work: Investment in Windows by end-users,
IT groups, lots of Windows data</li>
<li>At Large: ISVs, Solution Providers,
consultants, books, press, analysts,
resellers</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Windows has awesome positive momentum</li>
</ul>
<h2>... Kill Windows? (2)</h2>
<ul>
<li>We will continue to enhance
Windows in concert with Java
<ul>
<li>MMX performance tuning</li>
<li>Better and better multimedia</li>
<li>P7 Java instructions (GC, array
bounds, exception handling, ...)</li>
<li>New native storage (???)</li>
<li>Other new Windows services</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>... Kill Windows? (3)</h2>
<ul>
<li>20th Century Windows /was/ the
result of our faith in the advantages
of GUI and great execution</li>
<li>21st Century Windows /will be/ a
result of our faith in Java's
architectural benefits and more
great execution</li>
</ul>
<h2>Key Java Architectural Benefits</h2>
<ul>
<li>No memory trashing</li>
<li>Garbage collection</li>
<li>Threading</li>
<li>Security/Safety</li>
<li>Versioning/Package
Management</li>
<li>RAD Tools</li>
</ul>
<h2>20th Century Windows(R)</h2>
<table>
<tr>
<td><pre>
+-----------+ +--------------+
| ASM,C,C++ | | Any Language |
+-----------+ +--------------+
| |
+-----------+ +--------------+
| DLL | | COM |
+-----------+ +--------------+
/
/
/
+----------------------------+
| "The Operating System" |
+----------------------------+
</pre>
</td><td>
GUI APIs
<ul>
<li>Win32</li>
<li>MFC</li>
<li>VB</li>
</ul>
Problems
<ul>
<li>Pointers
<ul>
<li>Memory Trashing</li>
<li>Safety/Security</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Reference Counting</li>
<li>Threading</li>
<li>Versioning</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h2>21st Century Windows(R)</h2>
<table>
<tr>
<td><pre>
+----+ +------+
| VB | | Java |- - - -+
+----+ +------+
| / |
/
| / |
+------------+ +-----+
| | MS Java VM | | COM |
+------------+ +-----+
| | |
+- - - - +---+------+
|
+----------------------------+
| "The Operating System" |
+----------------------------+
</pre>
</td><td>
GUI APIs are AFC
<ul>
<li>SGL (UI+FX)</li>
<li>Trident</li>
</ul>
Benefits
<ul>
<li>No Pointers</li>
<li>Garbage Collection</li>
<li>Threading</li>
<li>Safety/Security</li>
<li>Versioning</li>
</ul>
<u>Developer Productivity!!</u>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h2>Windows Memory Trashing</h2>
<ul>
<li>Components in shared address spaces
<ul>
<li>Controls in the Windows shell (IE 4)</li>
<li>Controls in Active Server Pages</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Any large body of code written by
multiple developers is at risk
<ul>
<li>What percentage of Windows, IE, Office, etc.
bugs are memory trashing? How do you
<u>know</u> that they are <u>all
gone</u>?</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>No pointers, array bounds checking, and
type safety eliminate an entire class of
programming errors</li>
</ul>
<h2>Garbage Collection</h2>
<ul>
<li>Remove the hellish AddRef/Release class
of COM bugs (esp. circular reference!)</li>
<li>Simplify memory management</li>
</ul>
BUT: Lots of performance implications, have
to do a lot of original work to make this
real!
<ul>
<li>PDussud working w/ToddK in Research
and <i>TBD</i> in the Excel group and Windows
kernel team</li>
</ul>
<h2>Threading</h2>
<ul>
<li>USER + COM do not mix well
<ul>
<li>COM Apartment, Rental, and Free
threading models vs. USER</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>AFC (AWT) is free-threaded <u>by
design</u>
<ul>
<li>Java language makes threading easy
(<tt>synchronized</tt>)</li>
<li>GUI framework is designed for
threading</li>
<li>Only one type of Bean (Java visual
component)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Security/Safety</h2>
<ul>
<li>Pointers require extreme measures
<ul>
<li>pfn = (cast to pfn)12345678L;</li>
<li>(*pfn)(...); // Call off to anywhere</li>
<li>Have to protect <u>every</u> entry point <u>at
that entry point</u></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Java Sandbox is much simpler
<ul>
<li>Simply restrict which entry points may
be called, based on capabilities and
permissions</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Boon to Client <u>and</u> Server code</li>
</ul>
<h2>Versioning/Package Management</h2>
<ul>
<li>Java permits more flexible, efficient
code distribution
<ul>
<li>Incremental code download (per-class
basis)</li>
<li>No fixed v-tables (resolved at load
time)</li>
<li>[get more from MikeTout]</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>RAD Tools</h2>
<ul>
<li>Simplicity of Java vs. C++ means...
<ul>
<li>Java compiler is 20x faster</li>
<li>"Edit and Continue" is easy to do</li>
<li>Whole Program Analysis is possible</li>
<li>"Two-Way" (GUI<->Code) tools</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Combine the best of VB/VC++ tools</li>
<li>Standard Java classes (threading,
exceptions, lists, hash tables, ...)</li>
</ul>
<h2>AFC == Cross Platform</h2>
<pre>
Basic
Java ----------------------->
Application Functionality
Foundation Classes Performance
OS-Exploitative
Java
</pre>
<h2>Application Foundation Classes</h2>
<ul>
<li>Cross OS, CPU, Browser (written in Java)</li>
<li>UI and FX = SGL (Standard GUI libraries)
<ul>
<li>Bring richness & familiarity of Windows GUI
programming to Java developers</li>
<li>Fully compatible with AWT</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Dynamic HTML (Trident)</li>
<li>Multimedia Classes (DirectMedia)</li>
<li>Redistributable by ISVs</li>
</ul>
<h2>More Questions</h2>
<ul>
<li>What is the big deal about Trident?</li>
<li>When do I use SDL vs. Trident?</li>
<li>When do I use VB vs. Java?</li>
</ul>
<h2>Why Dynamic HTML?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Supercedes VB form package</li>
<li>2D Multimedia Run-time</li>
<li>Much richer, easier GUI framework
<ul>
<li>No more WM_PAINT</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Separates presentation from control</li>
<li>Single document format
<ul>
<li>Point of integration for productivity
components</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>SGL vs. Dynamic HTML</h2>
<ul>
<li>SGL is for traditional GUI programming
<ul>
<li>Easier, Richer than USER+GDI, MFC,
QuickDraw, NextStep, IFC, AWT, etc.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Dynamic HTML is next-generation GUI
<ul>
<li>Much richer behavior</li>
<li>Painting built-in and super optimized</li>
<li>Multimedia</li>
<li>In 3 years, Dynamic HTML apps will be
cooler than SGL apps</li>
<li>(Take all this on faith for now...)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>VB vs. Java</h2>
<ul>
<li>VB
<ul>
<li>Is simpler than Java</li>
<li>Millions of people know VB</li>
<li>But has a variety of "wierdnesses"</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Java
<ul>
<li>Is more expressive than VB</li>
<li>Scales to larger programs</li>
<li>Much "cleaner" language</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Both will compile to the Java VM</li>
</ul>
<h2>API Transition to Java</h2>
<ul>
<li>New APIs biased toward Java
<ul>
<li>Typically exposed via COM, or
implemented in Java</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>For existing APIs
<ul>
<li>Redesign for (and implement in) Java
(e.g., MAPI) -or-</li>
<li>Thin (COM) wrapper</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Java Code Ratio in Windows</h2>
<pre>
Java Java
C/C++ C/C++
C/C++ Java
C/C++ Java
C/C++ C/C++
Sooner... later...
</pre>
<h2>What if we ignore Java?</h2>
<ul>
<li>Someone else will execute on the
above strategy (Sun)</li>
<li>JavaOS comes along (on low-end
devices?), runs these Java apps
(which are easier/faster to write!)</li>
<li>Windows becomes irrelevant in
bigger and bigger sections of the
market</li>
<li>Microsoft has no choice, we must
seize control the Java platform!</li>
</ul>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<ul>
<li>Java Architecture (no pointers, GC,
threading, security, versioning)
makes Windows the leading
platform for the 21st Century</li>
<li>Dynamic HTML is the next
generation GUI class library</li>
<li>Learn Java Now, and start
prepararing for the future!</li>
</ul>
<h2>Backup Slides</h2>
<h2>Overview</h2>
<ul>
<li>Java leadership is our Destiny</li>
<li>Java: Language of the Future</li>
<li>AFC (Application Foundation Classes)</li>
<li>Java/VB/VC interoperability</li>
<li>Write Java/Trident apps</li>
<li>Spur Windows innovation</li>
<li>Action Items</li>
<li>Issues</li>
</ul>
<h2>Java Leadership: our Destiny</h2>
<ul>
<li>We <u>had</u> three choices:
<ul>
<li>Windows all the way, no cross-platform</li>
<li>Take Win32 cross platform, use Colusa</li>
<li>Embrace and Extend Java</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Provide the best Java technology
<ul>
<li>Best VM, Best Classes, Best Tools</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Make developers successful
<ul>
<li>Best way to write x-platform code</li>
<li>Best way to write Windows code</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Java/VB/VC Interop</h2>
<ul>
<li>Developers must be able to gradually
migrate to Java</li>
<li>Our Java must make it very easy to
incorporate non-Java code</li>
<li>VB and MFC are the dominant
Windows API</li>
</ul>
<h2>Write Java/Trident Apps</h2>
<ul>
<li>Motivation
<ul>
<li>Build real Java/Trident programming
expertise</li>
<li>Feedback to improve Java and Trident
platforms</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Obvious candidates
<ul>
<li>Mail/News</li>
<li>FrontPage</li>
<li>Java tools</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Spur Windows Innovation</h2>
<ul>
<li>Cannot rest on our laurels</li>
<li>Add more, compelling, Win32-only APIs</li>
<li>Add value beyond APIs, too</li>
<li>TCO (for corporations)</li>
<li>Simpler HW/SW (for homes)</li>
<li>Leverage MS Research?</li>
</ul>
<h2>Action Items (1)</h2>
<ul>
<li>JimAll: expose Win32 features to Java
(either thin layer, or Java-ized)</li>
<li>PGross/BenS: Focus Java tools efforts,
esp. Native Code, GUI construction</li>
<li>BenS: "Port" Trident to Java</li>
<li>BradSi: drive Java+Trident app
development (e-mail, FrontPage, ???)</li>
<li>JimAll: raise the ante on Windows end-
user features</li>
</ul>
<h2>Action Items (2)</h2>
<ul>
<li>TodN: communicate developer roadmap</li>
<li>PGross: Java/VB/VC interop</li>
<li>YuvalN/BenS: Move VB to Java VM</li>
<li>CharlesF: Drive Java Standardization</li>
<li>RobWell: Unify AFC UI/FX w/Trident</li>
<li>DanLi/SteveSi: Research future Trident
UI metaphors</li>
<li>JohnLu/JimAll: ActiveX Security</li>
</ul>
<h2>Action Items (3)</h2>
<ul>
<li>JohnLu: Define Java Mail/News Classes</li>
<li>DavidV: Define Java DB Classes</li>
<li>PGross/BenS: Tool to help migrate
MFC/C++ to AFC/Java</li>
<li>PGross: Integrate/Unify client-centric and
server-centric tools</li>
<li>ErichAnd/BenS: Legal guidelines/plan</li>
<li>RichT/JonRo: promote unique Win32
capabilities</li>
</ul>
<h2>Issues</h2>
<ul>
<li>Java OS?</li>
<li>More Win16 Java effort (JIT, etc.?)</li>
<li>How to engage w/Intel?</li>
<li>Developer messages: Java, VB, C++</li>
<li>Can we reduces number of languages
(Java, VB, VBScript, JScript)?</li>
<li>Colusa?</li>
</ul>
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
