Jesse Ezell Blog

Mesh on WPF/E

Ok, Mesh got mad at me and posted his own thoughts in response:

Well, I tried to post in the comments on the site, but they didn't seem to take.

Here is what I think is a more accurate and relevant comparison between Flash Player 8.5 and WPF/E.

Programing Support
----
Flash : Heavy (ActionScript 3, MXML / Flex Framework)
WPF/E : Heavy (C# / XAML / .NET)

3D Support
----
Flash : None. Some limited hardware acceleration
WPF/E : None (don't know about hardware acceleration.

Declaritive Programming Support
----
Flash : Yes. MXML
WPF/E : Yes. XAML

Bitmap Effects Support
----
Flash : Yes. Medium - extensive
WPF/E : Assume yes

(Flash has pretty extensive bitmap effects and filters. I am not as familiar with .net on this)

Animation Model
----
Flash : Timeline and programatic. Both authortime, and runtime.
WPF/E : Trigger-based: timelines control the animation, but the timelines are controlled by triggers;

Timelines Required:
----
Flash : No
WPF/E : No

Cross platform Support
----
Flash : Extensive
WPF/E : Committed to Mac and Windows (MS doesn't have good track record with cross platform plugins / support).

Drawing Tools
----
Flash : Heavy
WPF/E : Low to Medium (I put low since the tools are not released, and there is not a market of designers using them yet).

Availability
----
Flash : Summer 2006
WPF/E : First half 2007?

You can find more info on Flash Player 8.5 and Flex at labs:

http://labs.macromedia.com

mike chambers

Here is my response:

I don't exactly agree with your comparison either, its obviously a little biased toward Flash.

1) The Flash runtime doesn't really have MXML support, MXML is something you compile into SWF. I assume XAML support in WPF/E is going to be runtime, not authortime.

2) Programming support in WPF/E is way better than anything in SWF. WPF/E will support ANY .NET language as long as it meets a few requirements. IL is far more powerful and flexible than what the ActionScript bytecode model allows. Additionally, you will be able to use both VS.NET (which is undoubtedly the BEST dev environement there is), Sparkle, or even notepad and a command line compiler to create your stuff.

3) Cross Platform Support: Mac and Windows is enough for a 1.0. There is nothing really preventing MS from providing Linux, Windows Mobile, etc. support down the road, but you can't expect all those in 1.0. If a Linux user really wants to use it, they can install WINE (and most Linux users are advanced enough and have enough time on their hands to do such things if they haven't already). Probably a moot point anyway, since Andrew Stopford points out that "Linux and Solaris support partnered with third party to do." Outside of the desktop, you really are dealing with a different beast and probably need different designs anyway, but Macromedia's support isn't exactly the best thing since sliced bread in that arena.. last time I checked, there still isn't a player for my Windows Mobile 5.0 phone, and its been out for quite some time.

4) Drawing tools: Drawing tools aren't really as important with WPF/E, because it is about creating applications. With Flash it is a huge deal, because Flash is about creating pretty movies... that said, it's not like Sparkle is a piece of crap.

Some things to consider as well:

5) The SWF format is far more closed to 3rd party devs, as it requires getting the specs and building your own SDK or buying one from a 3rd party. Since Macromedia doesn't have SDKs available for SWF generation and takes forever to get the specs out, Macromedia is always two steps ahead of any 3rd party content producers.

6) If you are going to point out the availability of drawing tools and people with experience using them as such an important part of your comparison, then you should be fair and add the availability of Microsoft dev tools and the legions of Microsoft programmers that are out there. As this is about creating applications, not drawing cute little movies, an army of developers is far more significant that the comparatively small number of Flash UI designers. Not only are there legions of MS devs, but there are legions of MS devs that will be using the exact same IDE that they will be able to use to create WPF/E content. The similarity between WPF/E and WPF is hugely important, as it means that developers could provide both a rich web client and a full desktop client while reusing a lot of the same code (or transition from a web to desktop client for that matter).

7) Video support: Both support video, but with WPF/E supposedly supporting WMV across platforms, that could really be great for content providers if MS decides to add DRM capabilities in WPF/E 2.0. MS DRM is proven and trusted by a lot of media companies that would never think about offering their content as FLV. This is not to mention that there are a free tools directly from MS to create WMV content, but things like On2's video codec or Sorenson's H263 codec were not written, owned, or designed by Macromedia, so they can't really guide those technologies and don't have free tools for creating them. Why do we really need a completely different proprietary video format from a different company every other Flash release? If Macromedia is really serious about video, why can't Macromedia bite the bullet and hire some people with brains to write their own video codec instead of licensing everyone elses?

WPF(/E) vs. Flash Debate Rages On

The lines have been drawn, and a lot of interesting talk is going on.

Dax Dandhi has a great post about WPF(/E) and Flash.

There is no doubt about it, WPF/E is going to make a huge impact on the web. Microsoft has the resources, the people, and the developer army to make it happen.

Best WPF/E Description Yet

Jon Galloway has the best description of WPF/E I've seen yet. Most interesting details:

• target plugin size less than 2 MB
• MSIL engine included: my assumption is that you will first compile your C#, vb, etc. into some kind of client WPF/E DLL?... if so you could get something like Ruby support too... just wait till you see what that does to Ruby on Rails. ;)
• Supports: Audio, Video, Vector Graphics, Composition, etc.

So, basically, if I was working for Adobe/Macromedia, I would be pissing my pants right now. Microsoft has a tendancy to take good ideas and do them right.

http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2006/03/23/440933.aspx

WPF/E = Flash Done Right?

Finally some screens of WPF/E with a few details:

http://blogs.msdn.com/mharsh/archive/2006/03/23/559106.aspx

Looks to me like with support for real languages like C# on the client tier (yes even on the Mac) as well as vector graphics via XAML, WPF/E is shaping up to be Flash done right. The way I see it, two of the biggest problems with Flash are ActionScript and the fact that you must learn an entirely new development paradigm. Looks like WPF/E is going to solve both of these by really letting you code web apps the same way you code desktop apps.

Hopefully, Microsoft adds the right amount of richness into the mix while keeping the install small enough that it can be easily bundled or downloaded, because it would be great to see a decent competitor to Flash on the market. Flash is definately a cool technology, but there are huge flaws in it that Macromedia has never really had to address because there simply isn't any real competition in the space. I know JD doesn't agree with Microsoft's decision to build their own stack, but I think it will be better for everyone--including Flash users, as this may cause Adobe to address issues that it otherwise might be content to ignore.

XP Activation Blows

I decided today to upgrade my desktop's BIOS. Of course, Windows decided that this was a big enough change that I needed to reactivate. Not suprising, but what was suprising was the trouble I had to get to in order to reactivate. Apparently, Microsoft changed the activation policy a while back so that you can't reactivate a copy of Windows over the net. Unfortunately, at least in my case, it didn't say this when I tried to activate, it simply hung forever on the "Detecting Connection..." screen. So, after about 20 minutes of waiting and retrying, I decided to try phone activation. That ended with the same result 3 times in a row. The automated attendant said, "Sorry, I couldn't activate your copy of windows" and hung up on me. So I do some searching online and no one seems to have any information on the problem except that you need to speak to a customer representative... unfortunately, none of the options given on the phone let you speak to any live customer representative. Not wanting to settle for a broken desktop, I tried calling again and mashing the 0 button. I had to wait about 30 seconds for all the messages to finish before it worked and I was informed that I was being transfered to a live representative. Finally, after entering a new product key and clicking a few buttons, they were able to provide me with a working code. Now, why in the hell was this so hard to get working? At the very least, Microsoft could add a little message after the failed activation that says, "If you are sure your installation ID is correct, please press 0 to speak to a customer service representative." Apparently, the rep I talked with knew I needed to enter a different product key simply by looking at the first couple numbers of the installation ID, so why can't the automated service make the same judgement and transfer me straight to a rep after this first 6 digits instead of making me say the whole thing and then hanging up on me?

XBOX360#

Developers can now use C# for XBOX 360 programming. Sweet.

[1] http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=12175

Mix 06 Webcasts

Keep an eye on http://blog.mix06.com/virtualmix/ for webcasts if you didn't make it to Mix06. Gate's keynote should be up soon...

DMCA Reform

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has been wreaking havoc on consumers' fair use rights for the past seven years. Now Congress is considering the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA, HR 1201), a bill that would reform part of the DMCA and formally protect the "Betamax defense" relied on by so many innovators.

HR 1201 would give citizens the right to circumvent copy-protection measures as long as what they're doing is otherwise legal. For example, it would make sure that when you buy a CD, whether it is copy-protected or not, you can record it onto your computer and move the songs to an MP3 player. It would also protect a computer science professor who needs to bypass copy-protection to evaluate encryption technology. In addition, the bill would codify the Betamax defense, which has been under attack by the entertainment industries in the "INDUCE Act" and the MGM v. Grokster case. This kind of sanity would be a welcome change to our copyright law.

Last year we sent 30,000+ letters of support for the DMCRA, and the bill got a hearing on Capitol Hill. It's time to double that number - take action at the link below, then urge your friends and family to support HR 1201, too!

[1] http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=115

MySpace.Com does .NET

Notes from the MIX conference:

Aber Whitcomb, CTO, MySpace.com
• 65m registered members (#2 trafficed site on net, passing google, ebay, MSN)
• using SQL Server 2005 and ASP 2.0
• next-gen portal, social networking platform
• 9m members - converted to ASP.NET
• saw significant perf gains
• tool advantage of full OO
• 17M members - launched middle tier cache with ASP.NET
• 64bit asp.net, used huge amounts of ram, reduced server count
• 26M Members - SQL Server 2005 64Bit
• MySpace Home Profile page .NET 2.0 perf gains
• Reduced CPU usage from 85% to 27%
• Reduced web farm from 246 servers to 150

[1] Via Rob Burke: http://blogs.msdn.com/robburke/archive/2006/03/20/555626.aspx

Rapid Revolution

MS vs Apple: Paul Thurrott writes of the upcoming Vista marketing push: "I want you to mull over that 400 million figure for a bit. 400 million PCs. Running Windows Vista. Within 24 months. That's the business Microsoft 'competes' in. It's a completely different world from the 10 million or so people that use OS X. And that, as they say, is that." Microsoft anticipates an audience of 400 million people in 2 years, and Thurrott is impressed. Now, if only we had timely press releases on Player stats, I could cite you source material showing twice that audience (actual audience, not anticipated audience) in a quarter of the time for Flash Player 8, but as we don't, I can't. :( Still, when you're looking for predictable capabilities on Other Peoples Machines, it's pretty clear what types of platforms offer developers the most rapid evolution....

It seems that the people at Adobe/Macromedia just can't get it through their heads that the Flash player doesn't compete with the Windows OS as a platform, it competes with ASP.NET. If they want to get it up to par for desktop application development, they have a very long way to go, but they could start by making it so that you can launch a SWF file in standalone mode from explorer after you install the darn plugin on your machine.

As far as rapid evolution is concerned, you gotta be kidding me if you are going to try to say that the Flash Player is evolving more rapidly than Windows. Admittedly, the Flash player is an extremely cool technology for certain kinds of web based apps. However, since the Flash Player "Platform" was released, how much have we really gotten? Some video support, a slightly better version of Javascript, and masking effects. WOW! Rapid evolution at its finest. With Vista, those kinds of things are just the tip of the iceburg. We will also get full 3d support, a full webservice (WS-* enabled) stack, speech recognition support, natural language processing support, handwriting recognition, and a load of other new APIs and features. It is pretty safe to say that even if Vista takes 10 years to reach a decent adoption, Flash still won't have anywhere close to 50% of the functionality that the Vista platform gives us.

If we are going to say that the Flash Player provides us "rapid evolution," then I guess we are going to have to say that the Windows Platform provides us "rapid revolution."

[1] http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2006/03/ms_vs_apple.cfm