Just wonderful that you can run Java on Win. Now, how about forcing Netscape to support VBScript so that I don't have to code in Javascript? IE is nice enough to support Javascript. Is it asking too much for NS to help all the VB programmers in the world?

I do not really see a significant impact to this ruling, other than perhaps a moral victory. Since the JVM would be installed as a service pack, it means it will still have to be downloaded and installed by a majority of the users. Most users that would have trouble installing JVM from Java's website, would also have problems installing Java from a service pack.

The damage to Sun is already done, and this measure will not even act as bandaid.

Bill

Why stop there? If he can "order" Microsoft to innovate on his timetable, why not "order" the automobile industry to invent efficient electric cars by next quarter? How about all those lethargic AIDS and cancer researchers; let's make 'em come up with a cure next month (and come to think of it, we've been waiting for a cure for the common cold for a long, LONG time now...throw that one on the pile too!) Time travel would be nice, but it's probably a little harder than an electric Tahoe, so let's give 'em a year for that...but faster than light space travel and moon bases ought to be available within six months (and what about those flying cars and moving sidewalks they've been promising for years?)

This judge is either crazy or lazy, or he's just after the spotlight; he'll write a book or two and do the lecture circuit...

Let's not be Naiive. Whether the next release is Sun's version of JVM or Microsoft's version of JVM would not make any difference. After all, it's going to run on Microsoft's Windows... You don't think Microsoft can put some hook into their OS's to slow down Java? Hello?

I've been a Java developer for 6 years. And now I've been working on .NET for 3 months. Some thoughts:

1) Microsoft makes the best IDEs on the planet.

2) .NET ties the presentation layer pretty tightly to at least the first level of business logic (code behinds). This is both a great thing and a bad thing.

3) I have yet to find the .NET equivalent to the J2EE Entity Bean (esp. when dealing w/ the EJB2 spec).

4) While Microsoft has most of the plumbing in place for developing nTier applications (see #3), their tutorials are still focused entirely on the client/server model. This is bad for developers starting in the .NET world.

Anybody who is targeting a Windows only app is going to use .NET. Why choose Java to develop windows apps over .Net? Anybody targeting multi platforms is going to use Java. Soon Apache will want the same real estate on MS Server CD's along with IIS. And what about Macromedia, IBM, and everbody else who competes with MS? Mr. Bill, please develop a UNIX .NET version so we can see some real crying!!!

I must confess to being somewhat confused about who is supposed to benefit from this decision. Java developers or end-users?
Any Java developer who is incapable of downloading and installing whatever JVM he or she chooses may want to consider a career change :-)
In terms of end-users, my experience in Java development has been that because of the dynamic, fast-changing nature of the Java world, mot applications targeted for Windows machines must ship with their own JVM.
If you look as the commercial packaging sofware like ZeroG, etc., they all support that option explicitly.
That is hardly likely to change anytime soon regardless of this decision. I work for a large financial firm, which is regarded as being on the "positive" side of the new-technology curve. Nevertheless, over 50% of our desktops are still NT 4.0!
I have a hard time envisioning a time when a Java developer can ship a Windows-targeted application which relies on a specific JVM being there.

If you're going to post comments on this, at least make sure you're talking about the definitive facts rather than what a subjective view of them.

The ruling states, "Sun's first request for preliminary injunctive relief is, in essence, that Microsoft be required to set up Sun's most current Java runtime environment to be installed by default on any product containing .NET, including Windows XP (the most recent iteration of the Windows operating system) and Internet Explorer. Under the proposed injunction, the Java runtime environment is to be provided by Sun to Microsoft at no cost,..."

Hence, there is no danger of Microsoft providing a poorly performing JVM since it will come from Sun, not Microsoft.

This is what several people have already said. This can only benefit user's since it provides them with a choice.

It doesn't take much thought to realise that Sun didn't take MS to court to put a crap MS JVM or a crippled Sun JVM into Windows. The latter is pretty much why they originally sued MS. Unless the judgement is overturned on appeal, MS will have to include a recent Sun JVM - unmodified. So maybe a few web pages using obsolete JVM calls will need to be updated - big deal...

Hey guys, wake up. The problem here is not about which (.net or j2ee) is better.

If Microsoft releases a new JVM that deliberately makes java run very slow, what good is this JVM? It probably does more harm than good. Get it now?

This thread is great!
The density of nonsense and useless words has rarely been achieved to that extent!
Congratulations
Clueless people insulting each other about something they probably never touched or seen.
How many of you do actually write Java based applications and/or know the difference between J2EE and .NET ?

I guess you would be that moron, Tim Richards.

It is a court ruling. Microsoft has to ship a Java VM with Windows. What about that is so confusing for you?

There is no debate to made on the Microsoft JVM.

If you feel like debating something, go right ahead, and make your case.

This ruling does not mean Microsoft has to ship a JVM with XP SP2. They already did that with SP1. It includes the ol' Microsoft JVM that is based on JDK 1.1.4 plus Microsoft's J++ additions. You know that JVM, it's the one that caused Sun's first lawsuit against Microsoft. What this ruling says is that Microsoft has to ship Sun's JVM with XP SP2. That would have to be Java2 JVM, based on either JDK 1.3.1 or maybe 1.4. It cannot support those J++ extensions, via the aforementioned succesful lawsuit by Sun. There are actually quite a few websites that use Applets based on the old Microsoft JVM (this was one of Sun's points in the first lawsuit), so there is some significance to this. I would say that people need to read the fine print, but the print wasn't even fine...

It would be nice to hear a rational debate on the MS JVM issue rather than a slanging match. I wonder who the "moron" really is?

I'm envisioning a big line of loser companies suing Microsoft to ship the latest greatest version of say their screensaver (millions of people can not live without it!!!).
Sun just a loser with connections successfully attempting to rule free market with judges...