.NET 3.5 SP1 Beta Changes Your Expression
|
News Analysis. Yikes! .NET 3.5 Service Pack 1 beta isn't compatible with Expression Blend or Silverlight 2.0. Downloaders beware! |
But you knew that, right? Because someone from Microsoft blogged about the incompatibility last month, or was it today? Warns a post on the Expression Blend and Design blog:
"Recently, a beta of .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 was released. There is currently an incompatibility with Expression Blend/SP1, Expression Blend 2, and Expression Blend 2.5 March 2008 (whose version number is 2.1.1111.0) where Blend will not work if you have .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 Beta installed ... While Blend 2.5 Preview will also allow you to create and edit Silverlight 2 projects, they are not supported by Visual Studio at this time. If you are doing any Silverlight 2 development, please do not install .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 Beta until a future Silverlight Tools update is made available."
Strange, this is one of several Microsoft blogs that popped up in my RSS reader today with dates from the past. Maybe it's a glitch with my RSS reader—or maybe not. The first post, dated May 5, talks about SP1 betas for .Net 3.5 and Visual Studio 2008 as if they already had been released. The second post, dated April 18, is the one warning of the Expression and Silverlight compatibility problems. Interesting: All the comments to that post are from today.
Are the posts being backdated or did somebody forget to check their blogging system? Maybe someone edited the posts—except my RSS reader redlines changes, and there are none for either post.
The big announcement, about the two SP1 betas, is dated today, May 12. Scott Guthrie, veep of Microsoft's developer division, blogged about them—or did he? Hold off on that answer for another paragraph.
About these strangely dated posts. Did we all just miss them? I wouldn't discount the possibility, nor unintentional backdating. Last week my editor got an e-mail from a reader accusing me of backdating posts. I had to laugh because I don't really pay much attention to the time stamps; right now, Microsoft Watch is more focused on factual reporting and analysis than landing big scoops. The blogging system is Movable Type, and its default is to place the date and time stamp at the post's creation. The correct date and time must be manually applied before posting. Sometimes I forget to update the time stamp before posting. Maybe the Microsoft bloggers made the same kind of mistake.
What about Scott's presumably rightly dated post? He's a very popular Microsoft executive, and for good reason. Scott is direct, approach and seemingly real. But is he a good writer? I wouldn't know. But I wonder who writes his blogs. Are they personally done?
I ask, because on two recent occasions, Microsoft's outside PR agency sent me blogs days ahead of their posting. I had been prebriefed on announcements, for which the blogs were provided instead of embargoed press releases or other material. I was rather stunned the first time and nearly as much on the second instance. I concluded that:
- The PR reps' flippant willingness to provide the blogs demonstrated that the supposedly personal writings were viewed as nothing more than public relations material.
- The blogs had been vetted by Microsoft PR.
- Or, the blogs had been ghost written by someone at PR and perhaps vetted by the author.
Strangely, the possible accidental backdating of the two .NET 3.5 SP1 blog posts suggests to me that they're real. That's the kind of mistake I would expect more from a busy geek than a pedantic PR professional.
Still, as a journalist, I am deeply disturbed by the increasing PR bent of Microsoft employee blogs. I don't rewrite press releases as blogs or news stories. Ever. And I rarely quote from them. Most reputable journalists are similarly inclined; in my experience. But it's quite common for journalists to quote blogs, because the writings are personal, by real people. Everything changes when a public relations professional vets or even writes the post.
I had wondered why so many Microsoft bloggers are clear, communicative writers. My presumptions were: Smart people write well; the frequent e-mailing and IMing among tech professionals improves writing skills. But I'm now rethinking the conclusions. Maybe the posts are so well written because they're edited, vetted or ghost blogged.
I'm rethinking Microsoft blogs and how, or even if, I should continue quoting from them. They're absolutely valuable for getting out information to everybody. But is that Microsoft blogger you're forming an attachment to some smart Microsoft geek or a pretty twentysomething woman working for a PR agency?
Comments (16)
Correct title: ".Net 3.5 SP1 BETA Changes Your Expression"
Posted by roger | May 12, 2008 7:36 PM
I write as an MSDN blogger. I'm a real "warts and all" developer, not a pretty twenty-something woman working for a PR agency!
Conspiracy theories are great, but the simple reality is (as always) far more dull. Like many of my colleagues, I started working on my .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 post a few days ago, but we didn't make the official announcement until 9am today. However, when I hit "post", the entry originally appeared as being posted the day I started the post, not the day I pushed it live. I don't think that makes me or any of my colleagues a PR ghost-writer - just someone who doesn't want to "leak" something ahead of time. Nobody from PR vetted my post or ever has done so.
I wish I could find someone to write my blog for me - it would save me a lot of time :)
Tim
Posted by Tim Sneath | May 12, 2008 7:40 PM
Tim Sneath wrote: "I write as an MSDN blogger."
Good for you, Tim,
I hope more Microsoft bloggers pipe up and say the same. That said, yours certainly wasn't one of the blogs given to me ahead of time. I know that lots of bloggers are genuine. But I also know that many announcements that once had press releases are just blogs.
The good: There is more "audience-oriented" information in the blogs. The bad: When they are PR vetted or penned.
I'd like to see disclosure--acknowledgement that the post was written by the named person. Surely that can't be too hard. As a journalist, I would lose my job and credibility if someone else did writing that I put my name to.
Thanks,
Joe
Posted by Joe | May 12, 2008 8:23 PM
It's interesting to see you respond to the second comment and not the first one that talks about a factual error in the title of your post.
I guess your credibility isn't dependent on accurate titles...
Posted by Does it matter? | May 12, 2008 9:17 PM
Joe,
Please don't focus on petty stuffs like :
1) Reboot problem
2) compatibality issue
3) Late release
4) Steve Balmer
Please talk some enterprise stuffs, your blog is sinking to the level of celebrity gossip blog
Posted by Peter | May 12, 2008 9:29 PM
As the co-author of the Expression team's blog entry in question, I assure you that the date was an unintended side-effect and that we did not mean to mislead anyone at all.
The date that the post appears is when the Blend team realized that the product was broken and that we'd need to release an update coinciding with the 3.5 SP1 Beta (6:50 on a Friday evening, yeah, it was a long day). At that time we drafted a blog entry of how to explain the issue to our customers, but held off posting until the official announcement (which we originally thought was going to be sooner than it was).
PR had no role in the blog entry, the only delay was us waiting for the 3.5 SP1 release to go public. I'm delighted that you think so highly of our writing skills though :)
Also, not only does Scott Guthrie do his own blog entries, but I'm pretty sure that he pulls all-nighters writing some of the larger ones.
Posted by Pete Blois | May 12, 2008 10:59 PM
"If you are doing any Silverlight 2 development, please do not install .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 Beta until a future Silverlight Tools update is made available."
Fascinating. Microsoft can't keep their belt and suspenders in synch.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Posted by portuno | May 12, 2008 11:23 PM
"seemingly real"
Much of what Microsoft does and says is "seemingly real". But reality doesn't need a stage.
Posted by portuno | May 12, 2008 11:30 PM
Does it matter? wrote: "It's interesting to see you respond to the second comment and not the first one that talks about a factual error in the title of your post."
The story's lead clearly says "beta," as does the story repeatedly. I didn't ignore the first comment, just discounted it. But two commenters is enough for me. The title has been changed.
Joe
Posted by Joe | May 13, 2008 12:10 AM
Pete Blois wrote: "As the co-author of the Expression team's blog entry in question, I assure you that the date was an unintended side-effect and that we did not mean to mislead anyone at all."
Thanks, Peter,
So it's as I suspected. I never thought you meant to mislead. As I wrote, it seemed unintentional to me.
That's good to hear about Scott. He's well-liked for good reasons.
But I know that other announcements are coordinated with blog vetting by outside PR. By the way, I purposely chose this announcement to raise the topic, because it was so clearly not closely coordinated by PR. Otherwise, why the date and time stamp problems? I hoped that it would draw out exactly your kind of response. Thanks for letting some fresh air in the room.
Joe
Posted by Joe | May 13, 2008 12:19 AM
Joe,
I was the author of the "VS2008 SP1 and .NET FX Beta Performance Improvements" blog that Soma linked to in his blog, and I assure you that I'm a real person. (Thus any errors or misrepresentations are mine, and not the fault of the teams that contributed to the product).
When you consider the level of technical detail in most Developer Division blogs, it's hard to imagine any PR firm writing them. If there is any PR ghosting going on, it's the exception, not the rule.
Regards,
David Berg
Microsoft Developer Division
Performance Engineering Team
Posted by David Berg | May 13, 2008 1:03 AM
The Microsofties certainly seem very defensive, that's for sure ;)
I love the way that beta for Microsoft means it WILL break things. They invite people to test this software then blame them when it goes wrong and borks their computer.
Can anyone name a Microsoft beta product that has not had major problems with the 'ecosystem' (ie breaking other apps). Before anyone whines that 'ITS BETA!' - remember beta is supposed to be almost done and needs user testing to finish off some unseen bugs. The bugs we are seeing are all very obvious (including the HP/AMD problem with XP SP3). Do Microsoft not test anything they release? Are they so arrogant that they think the public will love anything they throw out?
Breaking your headline flash killer is not a good message for the developers, developers, developers.
OK - now on to more cleverer stuffs for our enterprisey users who need a break from crashing and incompatibility to talk about messages ques and stuffs.
Posted by billybob | May 13, 2008 6:52 AM
@billybob your understanding of a BETA product is very bad. If you think beta is supposed to be almost done, then what do you think a Release Candidate is? Do you think Firefox Beta 5 works great? A beta product is never guaranteed to work like a final product. If it does, its great, if it doesn't, then its not a problem.
Posted by Chaks | May 13, 2008 8:52 AM
Blech! I'll never use .NET . I have better control over my environment with Open Source. (I recently completed a major web project with Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL, Seaside/Squeak, and Darwin Streaming Server.) I will also consider using Sun's JavaFX before I consider Silverlight or Flash.
Posted by Richard | May 13, 2008 9:07 AM
How much money did Microsoft make?(By Portuno)
It's fairly easy to see the XML vision Bill Gates touted years ago coming to the fore in the industry players... all except for Microsoft.
Now that Microsoft is on the court stage, they seem quite careful at producing things that directly step on the VCSY patents.
So much so they can't get their own .Net/Silverlight system to cooperate.
I wonder how much money Microsoft made by using VCSY's IP during the years before today?
How many dollars do you think Microsoft made using somebody elses intellectual property?
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=4098&mid=4098&tof=5&frt=1
Posted by I-Man | May 13, 2008 5:35 PM
Nissan will start selling battery- powered cars in the U. S. and Japan in 2010, the New York Times reports, making it the first of the major automakers to plug into demand for no- emission vehicles. CEO Carlos Ghosn tells the Times stricter emissions regulations aren' t the big reason for his company' s decision. It has more to do with growing demand for cleaner cars. That demand isn' t limited to the U. S. or Japan, either. He tells the Times that companies like his must invest in clean vehicles as Chinese...
Posted by العاب قتال | June 20, 2008 6:59 AM