Microsoft WPF vs. Adobe Apollo, part 329

Don’t graphics like this actually take away from the message of a presentation rather than add anything though?
Lots of companies still only print in black & white.

The point is to get the graphs, data or business plan across to the audience, not to do a James Bond intro remake right?

Or am I just wrong here.

On Linux we have OpenOffice.org Presentation, which does a wonderful job at doing the same thing, but in a context that highlights the message rather than the vehicle for the message.

Again, or am I just wrong here?

I watched most of the full video. I wonder if they made conversion tools for powerpoint or OO2 format and visa versa.

Otherwise, companies can’t leverage the templates they already had done, ect… and may not see this as a good investment.

The good thing about OpenOffice.org Presentation, besides the being free part is that it inter operates with Microsoft office formats, including powerpoint.

If this company is asking people to throw away their foundation layer completely and adopt this, without the market power of Sun or MS, it may not do very well.
For instance, I have never seen their product boxed or available in retail stores.

Just an observation.

I watched most of the full video. I wonder if they made conversion tools for powerpoint or OO2 format and visa versa.

Otherwise, companies can’t leverage the templates they already had done, ect and may not see this as a good investment.
The good thing about OpenOffice.org Presentation, besides the being free part is that it inter operates with Microsoft office formats, including powerpoint.

If this company is asking people to throw away their foundation layer completely and adopt this, without the market power of Sun or MS, it may not do very well.
For instance, I have never seen their product boxed or available in retail stores.

I watched most of the full video. I wonder if they made conversion tools for powerpoint or OO2 format and visa versa.

Otherwise, companies can’t leverage the templates they already had done, ect… and may not see this as a good investment.

The good thing about OpenOffice.org Presentation, besides the being free part is that it inter operates with Microsoft office formats, including powerpoint.

If this company is asking people to throw away their foundation layer completely and adopt this, without the market power of Sun or MS, it may not do very well.
For instance, I have never seen their product boxed or available in retail stores.

Just an observation.

duplicate sorry.

duplicate sorry.

They are not exactly the same thing in the wya of using it at the moment. but i have played with 21 silverlight development and 5 apollo ones.

For the most part i go with Silverlight since you can do true HD video and pristine enhanced font and graphics with it that will look better than flash ,have more adaptability and are indexable..

i think that is the big thing.. choosing silverlight instead of Flash assure you that every Silverlight Startup you do will be fully indexable..

The inmediate thing i imagine done in silverlight insitead of flash would be Wallop., how fast and cool would it be if it were done with silverlight?.

My biggest concern is that MS itself adopt it fast enough and that we get to see lots of MS development using them..

The most urgent should be Soapbox, spaces and hotmail.

@Avatar,

I’m sure you know that developer had been able to use DirectX through ActiveX in IE since 1995. That’s 12 years of being able to produce the same type of application that silverlight facilitates.

The huge problem, even now with these easier implementations and developer tools is that there is a prejudice at Microsoft. They completely forgot Ubuntu and Linux users. You know those that actually make youtube videos popular by linking them on digg and other resource sites. And they are making the tech IE dependant as well.

ActiveX part 1 was a total mess. Even with nice tools and security, don’t you think ActiveX part deux has some chance at not being very successful? Or is the past irrelevant?

@Avatar,

I’m sure you know that developer had been able to use DirectX through ActiveX in IE since 1995. That’s 12 years of being able to produce the same type of application that silverlight facilitates.

The huge problem, even now with these easier implementations and developer tools is that there is a prejudice at Microsoft. They completely forgot Ubuntu and Linux users. You know those that actually make youtube videos popular by linking them on digg and other resource sites. And they are making the tech IE dependant as well.

ActiveX part 1 was a total mess. Even with nice tools and security, don’t you think ActiveX part deux has some chance at not being very successful? Or is the past irrelevant?

If you want to learn about WPF/E (silverlight), you can go to the experts over at Xaml.Net – they have worked on this for years have have quite a few kewl demos.

Scoble – sorry for the double post, the last comment I messed up.

Wow. Watched the really long video, but it was worth it. Doesn’t really look like a product that an individual user would use, but for big companies and stuff, looks awesome. I love the area where you can just gather media and info, and then drag it from there into the presentation. Really cool.

Ioannus de Verani
http://blog.verani.net

Wow. Watched the really long video, but it was worth it. Doesn’t really look like a product that an individual user would use, but for big companies and stuff, looks awesome. I love the area where you can just gather media and info, and then drag it from there into the presentation. Really cool.

Ioannus de Verani
http://blog.verani.net

As a flash user since Flash 3, I can vouch for the quality I’m finding in WP/E via Expressions Web Designer, aka Silverlight. I’m getting ready to launch a new home technology business and I’m building out the website with both technologies. I’m brushing up a bit with web usage–it’s been a while since I’ve checked–but within a few months I think I’ll introduce a product with WPF/E. It’s an amazing way to demonstrate product and push your brand. It will be interesting to see the numbers in a year, and as I get more proficient at using the product I’ll consider deploying it more broadly if I keep liking what I see.

What Flash has is an ARMY of developers and with the integration you’ve got coming from Adobe’s other line of products, I think you have a company that Microsoft won’t push around.

Robert, I cover this very issue in my most recent blog post (http://blog.kirupa.com/?p=86), but I think in the long-run, instead of seeing switchers, you are going to see developers familiar with both technologies who will use the right tool for the right job.

Cheers!
Kirupa

Robert, I cover this very issue in my most recent blog post (http://blog.kirupa.com/?p=86), but I think in the long-run, instead of seeing switchers, you are going to see developers familiar with both technologies who will use the right tool for the right job.

Cheers!
Kirupa

That is the problem for developers, more technologies, confused customers, more headaches

@10,

If everybody settled on 1 rich media file format, such as ODT for office documents, that problem would be gone.
The problem is that companies want to dominate with file formats instead of trying to sell their development tools and competing fairly.

The don’t want the other guy’s tool to open and edit a file made with their software.

Fortunately open source is changing this and FOSS programs are in fact standardizing, even with rich media formats. Even Microsoft is starting to feel the heat and pressure of governments that don’t want to take this kind of mind game anymore. California specifically is forcing Microsoft to standardize at least their office formats with a new bill.

So ultimately, in the near future, there will be 1 file format for office, and even rich media presentations, and MANY tools to edit those files. Free ones on Linux as well as proprietary tools on other platforms.
That’s the way of the future. Where people are no longer tied down to 1 development tool for a single piece of medium.

Even online applications will be able to edit these standard files. Google is leading the way there with it’s development tools online.

@10,

If everybody settled on 1 rich media file format, such as ODT for office documents, that problem would be gone.
The problem is that companies want to dominate with file formats instead of trying to sell their development tools and competing fairly.

The don’t want the other guy’s tool to open and edit a file made with their software.

Fortunately open source is changing this and FOSS programs are in fact standardizing, even with rich media formats. Even Microsoft is starting to feel the heat and pressure of governments that don’t want to take this kind of mind game anymore. California specifically is forcing Microsoft to standardize at least their office formats with a new bill.

So ultimately, in the near future, there will be 1 file format for office, and even rich media presentations, and MANY tools to edit those files. Free ones on Linux as well as proprietary tools on other platforms.
That’s the way of the future. Where people are no longer tied down to 1 development tool for a single piece of medium.

Even online applications will be able to edit these standard files. Google is leading the way there with it’s development tools online.

wpf is not an option.

not even considering.

coming from M$? thanks but no thanks.

even if it can turn lead into gold.

Sorry M$, send me a laptop with wpf and i’ll consider it.

Or maybe i’ll wipe it out and install ubuntu.

Robert,

I have been working with .Net since the first SDK in Nov 2000 on a project to implement Lisp and Smalltalk interpreters. Since May 2006, my focus has been on the browser environment using XBAP and WPF.

At the end of January 2007, I began a port of the entire project to Flash 9.0 not really expecting it to succeed. To my surprise, the ActionScript/Flash platform has worked out very well. Net has a few advantages like thread support and ActionScript has some advantages in dynamically loading/unloading code.

I am now working exclusively on the Flash implementation.

The reason for my switch is very simple: deployment.

I don’t comprehend the MS deployment strategy. They could have included .Net runtimes with the IE7 upgrade, but didn’t – or with an XP service pack.

.Net runtimes are available on maybe 2.5% (my guess) of Internet-connected machines while Flash 9.0 is 85% or more.

My view is that the next application platform will be the virtual machine – ie CLR/WPF or ActionScript/Flash (or maybe something else) and developers will write for the VM API without concern about whether it runs on Windows (any version), Macintosh, or Linux.

I assumed that the MS strategy with .Net was to own the next platform and that they would deploy the runtimes agressively.

But there have been an endless series of mixed signals, half measures and missed deadlines. And I am totally confused by this whole WPF/e aka Silverlight mess. It means three .Net API’s (WinForm/WPF/Silverlight) with the last one not fully specified.

Adobe’s Apollo is out and it works well – so the desktop is now covered by Flash as well.

Comparing .Net and Flash is easy. One is consistent, stable and available while the other is not.

Robert,

I have been working with .Net since the first SDK in Nov 2000 on a project to implement Lisp and Smalltalk interpreters. Since May 2006, my focus has been on the browser environment using XBAP and WPF.

At the end of January 2007, I began a port of the entire project to Flash 9.0 not really expecting it to succeed. To my surprise, the ActionScript/Flash platform has worked out very well. Net has a few advantages like thread support and ActionScript has some advantages in dynamically loading/unloading code.

I am now working exclusively on the Flash implementation.

The reason for my switch is very simple: deployment.

I don’t comprehend the MS deployment strategy. They could have included .Net runtimes with the IE7 upgrade, but didn’t – or with an XP service pack.

.Net runtimes are available on maybe 2.5% (my guess) of Internet-connected machines while Flash 9.0 is 85% or more.

My view is that the next application platform will be the virtual machine – ie CLR/WPF or ActionScript/Flash (or maybe something else) and developers will write for the VM API without concern about whether it runs on Windows (any version), Macintosh, or Linux.

I assumed that the MS strategy with .Net was to own the next platform and that they would deploy the runtimes agressively.

But there have been an endless series of mixed signals, half measures and missed deadlines. And I am totally confused by this whole WPF/e aka Silverlight mess. It means three .Net API’s (WinForm/WPF/Silverlight) with the last one not fully specified.

Adobe’s Apollo is out and it works well – so the desktop is now covered by Flash as well.

Comparing .Net and Flash is easy. One is consistent, stable and available while the other is not.

If you want to learn about WPF/E (silverlight), you can go to the experts over at Xaml.Net – they have worked on this for YEARS and have quite a few kewl demos.

Scoble – sorry for the triple post, the last comment I messed up. (NEED Coffee!) Maybe you can get a plugin for preview before posts?

@12

WPF is not the same as silverlight. WPF is simply a class library for .NET

I have an MSDN professional subscription, so I get those annoying DVDs in the mail each month titled “Index & Webcasts” along with the other clutter.

Those are a good source for that information as well.

Even with the new .NET class library, I find the open tools much more palatable and the open formats such as SVG, ect.. much better.

Flash will not be displaced, ever, by a technology that does not have a Linux implementation. It’s just too widespread now to ignore. The digg community will not embrace it, and neither will the educated population. Sure you can impress a few execs with it, but that’s not going to translate to adoption.

Look at what happened between ASPX and PHP. Or flash and the alternatives.

Slick != adoption
Silverlight != WPF

Silverlight is an ActiveX object similar to Macromedia/Adobe’s for displaying vector graphics.
Except unlike Adobe’s it only works on x86 Macs and Windows, and there is no development platform outside of Windows.

@12

WPF is not the same as silverlight. WPF is simply a class library for .NET

I have an MSDN professional subscription, so I get those annoying DVDs in the mail each month titled “Index & Webcasts” along with the other clutter.

Those are a good source for that information as well.

Even with the new .NET class library, I find the open tools much more palatable and the open formats such as SVG, ect.. much better.

Flash will not be displaced, ever, by a technology that does not have a Linux implementation. It’s just too widespread now to ignore. The digg community will not embrace it, and neither will the educated population. Sure you can impress a few execs with it, but that’s not going to translate to adoption.

Look at what happened between ASPX and PHP. Or flash and the alternatives.

Slick != adoption
Silverlight != WPF

Silverlight is an ActiveX object similar to Macromedia/Adobe’s for displaying vector graphics.
Except unlike Adobe’s it only works on x86 Macs and Windows, and there is no development platform outside of Windows.