Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Silverlight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.107.95.68 (talk) at 17:08, 7 September 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. Looking at the article it seems obvious to me that the planet's largest monopoly wrote the article. Any appearance of the suppression of discussion calls the entirety of the article into question regarding NPV. Calling people "trolls" etc..., then "archiving" the history (and maybe evidence that others have objected to the article's bias) creates an even worse impression than the biased article already has.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick[reply]

Archive time increased from 90 days to 180 days. --Kslotte (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverlight is Crapware, does little or nothing, and most people woudn't want it if they knew what it was.

Obviously the entire article was written by Microsoft, which I don't really have a problem with. However, it IS a question of priority. There's a lot of information there, but then a great deal is missing. What's missing is the fact that "Silverlight" really doesn't DO anything (that I'm aware of). And if it does, it should have been the first sentence of the first paragraph of the wiki article.

It's not about what MS's priorities are, it should be about what the average visitor to wikipedia wants to know, and obviously the first thing people are going to want to know is (EXACTLY) "What would I want this thing for ?".

MS Update foists this bloatware on unsuspecting users, changing their computers to adapt to it's agenda/priorities rather than doing what the customer might want. I do computer repair, and have incorporated the uninstallation of Silverlight as part of my service, as well as hiding it in Windows Update to prevent MS from installing it again (along with a long list of other bloatware MS Update "automatically" installs). Most people don't need this crap. Most people don't use this crap, and most people wouldn't want this crap on their computer if they were given the option, AND if they understood that the more crap you have installed;

1) The slower your computer runs, and 2) The more things there are to break, and cause problems.

It's a basic principal that "The solution to having too much crap installed on your computer is NOT to install even more crap."

Silverlight is CRAP. Someone needs to say it, and this is where it should be said. HOW the wiki conveys the idea that Silverlight is crapware is the question.


````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably sure WP isn't a depository for consumer software reviews. While I agree with your assessment of the subject, this isn't the forum for that sort of thing. --69.29.15.242 (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But he is right, i have had to go through my girlfriends computer several times cleaning out junk that MS install automaticly, and this is just more junk that people like me, who want nothing more then a computer that works dont need installing itself again like it did today. That was what made me come and look this thing up on the wiki. MS need to respect people and their lives... let us decide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.100.228 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


````Jeff Martens

I agree with everything said above, but think this is also something that should be addressed in the article. Why would a developer use this, especially given its poor cross-platform support?


````Francesco De Vittori

The article clearly and objectively explains what Silverlight is. Silverlight being crap or useless is just your (debatable) personal opinion until you can provide objective facts to prove it (then they would be worth it to be mentioned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenk82 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is that this article is so dense with jargon that I can't make heads or tails of what this product is or why I should keep it on my computer. Surely there's a way to flag this for Wikipedia articles. One of the very worst articles I've run across. Jeffrw (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' Dan

I came to this page because Windows Update was recommending an "important" update. But after searching the internet, I couldn't figure out why I might need Silverlight. I was extremely disappointed that the article here did not clarify that. To me, the critical comments above sound appropriate. I'm hoping someone with more knowledge than I, other than someone from Microsoft, could edit this article to make it more useful and objective.

Silverlight on Windows Phone 7

Mary Jo Foley reports that Silverlight for Windows Mobile will only be available as a framework for apps (out of browser?) but Silverlight won’t run in the browser. The article is incorrect about this in saying it's "Planned" for IE6/IE7. - xpclient Talk 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X compatibility info

I was disappointed to see the lack of information on this. For the past 5-10 years Microsoft has been making .net, of which silverlight is a subset, a central part of their windows platform. Seeing that this Windows proprietary API suddenly pops up on OS X is very surprising and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.249.254 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 98 compatibility

I think the compatibility section should include Windows 98. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverlight SEO (Search Engine Optimization)?

The Silverlight SEO section says Silverlight content is designed and stored in the human-readable XAML format, which is based on XML, the text-based standard that derives from the same markup language as HTML. All text defined in an XAML file, such as paragraphs of text or button captions, is in standard Unicode format, and can be parsed as plain text by an XML reader or a generalized text parsing utility. Therefore, any ZIP-aware search engine capable of parsing XML or arbitrarily decorated plaintext is capable of processing Silverlight content.

But this is plain wrong from my experience. Silverlight XAP packages (zip files as correctly stated) include dll's and not the XML/XAML source code files. Dll's are compiled binary and not human readable at all.

Maybe there is an option to include the XAML files in the compiled package, but I'm not aware of this. Can anybody confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenk82 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Silverlight&oldid=383483280"