| 8:13 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It would be a good buy for MS
Here is an earlier discussion.
| 8:15 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Woo... it would certainly make me glad I've become overly dependent on Adobe products, rather than Macrosoft... or Micromedia... or whoever. ;)
Egads... what would that mean for Flash?
| 8:16 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry - didn't see that one. It sure hit me between the eyes, though, when I read it.
| 8:22 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
They want flash. I think it is the major part of the aledged deal. MS Flash. I talked to some MS developers and they had some good info on why it would be a good buy.
Coldfusion and JRun could be built into the .Net Server. I they think MS would like to beef up the IIS package. Dreamweaver could essentially become Frontpage .Net. Flash could be built into the .Net architecture and you could start using it for OS level stuff on top of the web application. Freehand and Fireworks would give MS the ability to have a graphics suite, something MS has toyed with.
It seems to plugin to MS's strategy for the future. Could it cut the mustard with any anti trust issues or anything else is another question.
I am not adverse to microsoft. I think there are a lot of other companies that do what they have done. I definitley don't defend them, but I am not going to start throwing stones either. In a perfect world we would all use macs anyway. :)
[edited by: korkus2000 at 8:25 pm (utc) on Dec. 26, 2002]
| 8:23 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I knew there was a reason I was a die-hard Adobe user, if not only because I started with Adobe.
This gives me even more reason to save my installs of smaller programs like Paint Shop Pro and PhotoImpact for web work. Sort of like rooting for the underdog, and I feel these programs stand on their own merits. I like the idea of "alternatives".
As for Flash and CF, I think the reason they've been so good is because they weren't developed with MS in mind. That could all change in a hurry once and if they are "Redmond-ized".
Wonder if they'd stay as Mac friendly, too?
| 8:29 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
MS has been cozing up to mac. I think MS understands that macs have a die hard group of designers. I believe they own a portion of apple. The MS developers for MAc software have always been outstanding. I wish they developed the stuff for windows. MS applications always run so much better on a mac. IE has always been pretty solid on the mac.
| 8:34 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yeah... I'd have to say that MSWord/Mac is a better program than Word/Windows. Same with IE. I could only hope they'd encapsulate the Macromedia holdings in their own little department, semi-segregated from the rest of the company with a good deal of autonomy on the development end.
Microsoft needs to maintain good Mac support, it's one of their best arguments in the "No, really, we're not a monopoly" game.
| 8:36 pm on Dec 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I see the blue screen of death... while I'm working on a 140 mb file... That's what scares me. I would hope the parts that work would still work once they were more heavily integrated into the MS apps. Somehow, that's the most unsettling part.
And, yes, the whole anti-trust issue would need to be addressed all over again. MS must have some idea how they would handle that, or I doubt they'd even venture so far.
I wonder if Sun sent them any Christmas cards?
| 11:14 pm on Dec 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Not that I don't like MS products, but IMHO I think this would be a BAD thing!
| 12:41 am on Dec 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you can't beat 'em, .... buy 'em!