Sun's Java client is slow compared to Microsoft's, but if it crashes on you it's probably because you were trying to run a Java applet that was written for Microsoft's JVM and as a result, crashes "pure" JVM's.

Thus Sun's ire.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/

Does anyone like Suns java client?
i tried it once while vm was taken out and all it did was crash crash crash

Good times.

If which was my company?

If Sun was my company, then yeah, I'd bitch and whine and sue. Sun are being forced out of the market by a massive corporation with inferior products. That's not fair.

And I don't even want to think about if Microsoft was mine. They need to start developing software that's worth all that money, then I'll accept that they need all that cash and that one company should own that much wealth.

It's kinda disgusting really.

If it was your money/company you would do the same thing. Dont be neive...

This comment was edited on Feb 4, 20:45.

Thank you both for the reply. I've been wondering about this for a while now, especially when I installed Limewire, and I had to d/l some Java environment program. I couldn't remember ever having to do this for anything else, and I thought it was strange that a Windows based program needed a separate JAVA program to work.

My first thought was that Sparrow was being ironic.

To expound on SuperguyA1's post: since Java is not platform specific, the theory goes that if platforms become irrelevant then the dominance of Windows could be threatened. Microsoft licensed Java from Sun so they could make their own Java VM. However, they took some things out for what they called security reasons and then added some things of their own to make Java programs run better on Windows. As a result it became possible to write Java programs which would not run on Windows and others which would only run on Windows. Sun demanded that Microsoft undo these changes, since it undermined the premise of Java ("write once, run anywhere") and went against the agreement that Microsoft had signed. When Microsoft refused, Sun sued them. The lawsuit's been dragging on for years, to the point where Microsoft made Windows XP ship with no Java VM installed. The first time you needed Java (like the "punch the monkey" ads at the top of Blue's) you had the option of installing it, but Microsoft eventually pulled that, too. Their argument was that since no matter what they did they were violating Sun's agreement, they might as well get rid of their Java VM altogether. Sun then sued AGAIN to get MS to put Java back into XP. So far, Sun seems to be winning in court - MS has been forced to integrate Sun's Java VM and pull their own.

The reason I thought Sparrow was being ironic is because as a result of all of this (the spotty availability of Java, the fact that it doesn't always work), MS has been pretty successful in undermining Java and what people think of it - many won't work in Java since "MS doesn't support it". Though at the end of the day Sun will have their way, the damage may have been done already.

Though on the flipside, it could be that Sun demanded MS put an unsafe product in their OS, demanded that they couldn't improve it without court battles, and in the end they took a Java VM which was incredibly fast and FORCED Microsoft to replace it with their incredibly slow Java VM. If Apple pulled Java, Sun wouldn't bat an eye - Apple doesn't have 90% of the desktop.

Schnapple

http://members.tripod.com/schnapple99/

I'm not a Java expert but here is what I know. Java is an object oriented programming language. But different from other programming languanges (c/C++) in that rather than compiling into a program to be run on a specific machine (Intel/Windows etc...) it compiles into a pseudo executable which is then run by the VM (virtual machine) gaining the effect of being able to run the same program independant of any one archetecture.

What is VM, and why is Java necessary? If someone would enlighten me, please.

It would be fairer to allow people to choose which VM to install, so I'm kinda glad they've pulled the MS VM out of Windows XP

I agree, the courts however don't seem to. As I understand the current situation MS not providing a VM was held to be an abuse of monopoly power. I can't see how making people choose rather than bundling your own product is an abuse of power but there you go.

Anvil

It would be fairer to allow people to choose which VM to install, so I'm kinda glad they've pulled the MS VM out of Windows XP.

it gets even worse, rumors have it that Microsoft will soon be releasing SP1b which includes the Sun Java VM (if I understood the rumor right..)

He is correct.

If you currently have service pack 1, there is no reason to isntall SP1a, at all.

In fact, until the Java and Windows situation is sorted, it can in fact be quite annoying to have no working VM included. [for novice users especially].

MICROSOFT? MORE LIKE MICRO$UX~!!!!!1 lOLoLoL!!!!!!!11

It looks like Windows XP SP1a is the same as Windows XP SP1 except that the Microsoft virtual machine (VM) is removed in SP1a.

Taken from: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=83e4e879-fa3a-48bf-ade5-023443e29d78&DisplayLang=en


This comment was edited on Feb 3, 21:24.