« Flash Lite Webinar - Feedback WantedHey Ma, I'm on BBC Radio ;) »

12 comments

  1. § shunjie said on :
    Thanks Richard for the article, I think this is a very well balanced article. Without a doubt, wpf/e will have an impact in the RIA scene in the months to come. Ultimate, it is the question of 'why we need another framework' when Flex and Flash is around.
  2. § Ryan Stewart said on :
    Well done Richard, I'm putting this in the UDD tomorrow. Great writeup.
  3. § Jason said on :
    Hi Richard, nice and balanced article. I just wanted to point out that there's a problem with the link for the download. This link currently displays an error:
    http://richardleggett.co.uk/downloads/wpfe/Tests/Tests/Tests.zip
  4. § bluej said on :
    Very informative article. My question however, is what does MS suggest are the system requirements for WPF/e? I've got what I thought was a decent PowerPC (PowerPC 1.5 GHz) and even the simple rectangles example of yours brought my whole system down in a way I've never seen it brought down before. Okay, so maybe I don't have the fastest or latest computer, but I've never had any performance problems with any Flex content.
  5. § Bill Napier said on :
    Richard,

    Thanks for clear explanation of WPF/E versus Flash development.

    As a designer (and not a strict coder) I find it very interesting to see Microsoft attempt to undermind Adobe.

    Their use of Javascript and AJAX techniques along with indexable content will go a long way in overturning Adobe's lock. Having said that, I am pulling for Adobe in this one. I can appreciate the arguements of the w3 and CSS web purists but I can also get very excited about the possibilites of Apollo.
  6. § Richard Leggett® Email said on :
    Sorry the link is now fixed:

    http://richardleggett.co.uk/downloads/wpfe/Tests/Tests.zip

    Thanks to all for your comments. As for the Mac requirements. I know this is being tested on a variety of Macs, however I may not have written a very efficient example (see the three animation types on that linked page, I think in that example I may have used the third).
  7. § Mike Harsh said on :
    Another comment on the Mac system requirements. The 1.5GHz G4 is plenty of machine to run WPF/E.

    We found a performance issue in the Mac version of the December CTP of WPF/E. We've fixed this issue and the next CTP will have greatly improved Mac performance.
  8. § Noah Gedrich said on :
    Great Article Richard. Glad to see you're really getting into the details on this.
    For the technology to really take off it's going to take people really banging on it and trying to use it in ways that weren't necessarily envisioned by Microsoft; working around its limitations and finding inovative ways to use it. Flash wouldn't be what it is today if people didn't spend years finding the hacks and strange solutions that are now considered the industry standards.
  9. § Ron Hudson MCSD said on :
    Bravo. Thanks for doing the research and providing us this brain dump on a key issue of the day.

    Thanks for Macromedia for forcing MS to provide a STANDARDS-BASED RIA tool. Flash eliminated much of the monopoly MS used to have on presentation with Windows Apps by providng rich content in the browser.

    Adobe attempted to leverage Flash's advantage by developing Flex to compete with VS.NET. Now MS has to counter-punch by going after Flash with WPF/E. How ironic that MS was forced to use STANDARDS (xml vs. binary download) to trump Flash.

    It will be interesting to see what the next move is in the Internet Architecture chess game. As a .NET and XML guy, I'm going to explore WPF/E as a shortcut to creating basic instructional animations on web pages. This will prevent me from having to learn Flash and get involved with "yet another platform vendor." As the writer of this article said, integration has its benefits.

  10. § Adam said on :
    I thought the E stood for 'Everywhere'... but, err, no Linux plugin?
  11. § Jack said on :
    Good article. One thing to note: The full version of WPF/E is supposed to be codeable in C#. So you won't be stuck with JavaScript. Whether that's a win relative to ActionScript is a whole 'nother question.
  12. § Art Scott said on :
    Way!

    Thanks.

    It can only get better.

Comments are closed for this post.

Contact. ©2009 by Richard Leggett. blogging tool / UK hosting / fp.
Design & icons by N.Design Studio. Skin by Tender Feelings / Evo Factory.
Entries RSS Comments RSS Log in