Talk:Microsoft Silverlight

Adoption

This article is badly lacking information on Silverlight adoption on the web. A sentence on large sites that use Silverlight, and possibly some numbers on how many sites use it compared to Flash, etc. 78.52.197.211 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/oct08/10-13Silverlight2PR.mspx hAl (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Python and Ruby

There's a big inaccuracy at the article, which seems to imply that Ruby and Python are .NET languages, they aren't. Can somebody fix this coherently? .

the article refers to Iron Python and Iron Roby, which are indeed .NET languages. Leotohill (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Compatibility

I think we should add Windows 7 to the chart under Compatibility. For the record, Silverlight 2.0 seems to be working with Firefox 3 and IE8 under build 7100. Mbslrm (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting information

In the table it lists that firefox can run silverlight on a Mac PowerPC computer, and then shortly after it states "Silverlight requires an x86 processor with SSE support." PowerPC is not x86. Which is right? 146.137.238.34 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Silverlight 4

I’m not sure it Silverlight 4 (wish list) should have a sections with the other versions. Perhaps in the external links? Rasmasyean (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Silverlight 4 here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.178.62 (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

reception or Criticism Section Needed

I agree with the previous poster that page is practically an advertisement for the product. At best, a fortified spec sheet. This really seems to be a divisive application, sort of like Vista was--some loved it and some hated it. That sort of thing needs to be covered on a page like this. The internet is rife with anti-silverlight rants, especially in the Netflix community, where many have lost functionality after the migration from a lighter program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.238.180 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Microsoft pay people to keep their articles clear of criticism on Wikipedia. You can never tell who, or how much, but its a full time job trying to balance the notable viewpoints - some editors may fight back 'like their jobs depend on it'! --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are spreading FUD. Micrsoft only once approached a single independant XML standard expert (the foremost expert on schematron) to improve technical information on wikipedia on the office open xml format article. He had every freedom and certainly was not hired to clear articles of critisims. In the end he only suggested some edits on the talk page and did not edit the article itself. You show yourself to be extremely biased against Micrsoft with the above FUD comment. hAl (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're being trolled by slashdot. Polls have shown that the majority of netflix users love the new silverlight plugin. Sorry. Go elsewhere to spread your lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.168.112 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Instead of accusing one another of being trolls or shills, consider the point being made - should a page about proprietory software point out that there are valid criticisms of that software and/or that the software has critics? IMO it should, particularly if - as seems likely - Silverlight's development is unlikely to be as truly cross-platform as Microsofoift would like to portray it. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/ for more info. NPOV anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.178.62 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the irrelevant sub-argument mentioned there, this article lacks a Criticism section, when something that is up for debate should be written as NPOV or at least balanced (this article appears wholly not NPOV, and I think the suggestion for a complete rewrite under NPOV is highly warranted). It is a great Ad. or company spec. document, but this is an encyclopedia. The one piece that appeared to state an opposing view (in an unsuccessful attempt for balance) was summarily countered, which is a high sign this article blatantly favours one party. Someone, please fix ASAP! (i.e. Help!) --Nonprof. Frinkus (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article need a criticism section? Do the Flash article, the C++ article, the C article, the FORTRAN article, etc. need criticism sections too? Shouldn't parts of what might plausibly go into a criticism section be distributed to their logical places, e.g., licensing, marketing, adoption, various technical sections, etc.? ATBS 07:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

Hello World

How about a hello world example? ATBS 07:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

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)

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

Operating systems and web browsers

shouldn't the n/as changed to nos? (ok, the internet explorer n/a on the non-windows-os are ok) what about the green only sl1.0 and sl2.0 which doesn't support 3.0? shouldn't there a partial template used? mabdul 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had various uses of {no} and {n/a} templates in this table. This version was almost all red, while this one had a mixture. There was some confusion I think as to whether the visible "N/A" stood for "not applicable" or "not available". In the end, I think people who wanted to show Silverlight in the best possible light eventually removed all the red. The real problem was WP:Verifiability: without references, it was very hard to know for sure what browser had some version that worked in what environment, and whether there was some version of Silverlight or Moonlight that could be made to work on that combination. Without reliable sources, people can come along and make incremental changes that are hard to verify or deny. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, that seems right to mee. should we really mention that safari is used by sl over npapi. ff/sm/(opera)/others no? or which api do sl uses for them? mabdul 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Silverlight SEO" section?

This is an interesting blurb, but seems a little off-topic here. It doesn't really contribute to a reader's understanding of what Silverlight is, and if it's included any number of other similar topics could be, so it feels like it shouldn't be here at all. Rssaddict (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you dispute the content? It seems highly relevant to me, if true; and clearly related to the section above about web standards. --Nigelj (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not disputing the content, no. I think it just feels tacked on. Maybe if we moved both of those sections into a "Criticism" section to group them logically, and allow for adding e.g. accessiblity concerns? Rssaddict (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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