Just heard it...Ray Ozzie says XNA will support Silverlight.

Not sure if this refers to the "XNA brand" which includes all of the Microsoft gaming thechologies or to GSE.

I'm watching the Scott Guthrie interview http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=304508 and so far he's not mentioned any XNA stuff. Apparently its going to run on the Mac though...

[edit: At 19:00 in the video he comfirms WIndows and Mac only, but says they are looking at other platforms incluidng "mobile devices". No mention of XNA :-( ]

Looks like the keynotes will be available for download from here http://visitmix.com/Blogs/Joshua/ray-ozzie-and-scott-guthrie-keynote/ later so we can all analyze Ray's exact words body language and speculate wildly

kierepka:

For me it would be great if XNA will implement it's own Silverlight parser (for GUI development).

Probably way too early to announce anything real, but I am toying with such a thing for some time now - postponed a bit due to knowing the new version would arrive today. Anyway, the parser it self is rather simple to write, implementing all the layout, rendering and animation stuff is the time consuming part :)

Ok here's the actual quote...Ray Ozzie said...

"...Silverlight changes the game by giving you a new choice for developing incredibly sophisticated rich internet applications in the language of your choice. It's a first-class .Net runtime environment allowing you to leverage existing skills and tools across the continuum of server and service, browser, mobile device, and with XNA, even on the game console..."

I talk already on MVP Summit that is sad that there is no:

- browser on Xbox (like PocketIE), and no support for real LIVE services (MSN, Search, Maps, Messenger (sic!), Office Live etc.) - don't ask me why...
- no good integration XNA with .NET 3.0 (WCF, WPF/ WPF/e - SilverLight, etc) - don't ask me why... maybe because there is no .NET 3.0 for PocketPC/WindowsCE - still don't understand why. They can make WPF/e for .NET Microframework, but can't do for Compact Framework?
- no other good stuff (MSN Games, Microsoft TV - ok it will be in future, but not this same)

I don't know why Microsoft always doing things twice, and not integrate their own services (tools for developer like XACT, PIX - why they are so different then Visual Studio and not even support Visual Studio - for example working as a plug-in?).

 For me it is strange - I understand that Microsoft is big, I understand that each team can do things in their own way, but why this things are separated? Why they live in different worlds? I'm talking about lack in productivity and integration.

kierepka:

I don't know why Microsoft always doing things twice, and not integrate their own services (tools for developer like XACT, PIX - why they are so different then Visual Studio and not even support Visual Studio - for example working as a plug-in?).

Different groups do different things, and shoehorning XACT/PiX into VS would be rather suboptimal anyway, e.g. having to install VS to use XACT or PiX adds a lot of cost and XACT target audience are audio designers, not developers.

kierepka:

For me it is strange - I understand that Microsoft is big, I understand that each team can do things in their own way, but why this things are separated? Why they live in different worlds? I'm talking about lack in productivity and integration.

Why should everything be integrated for the sake of integration only? Yes, I'd like to see WPF in XNA (even the subset that is known as Silverlight now, hence the Bronzeglow project =]) but the media streaming features in Silverlight - which seems to be the current, big thing everyone talks about - does not make too much sense for XNA, especially as XNA does not have any network support (yet). If all teams did live in the same world, innovation (yes, this poor word is way to abused inside MS) would be limited by support of all platforms (Sidenote: I wonder how things were in respect to .NET support if the 360 featured a x86 compatibile CPU instead of the PowerPC one...) Anyway, diversity is not bad at all, demanding that new stuff is available everywhere at the split second it is released for another platform is :]

Bjoern Graf:

Different groups do different things, and shoehorning XACT/PiX into VS would be rather suboptimal anyway, e.g. having to install VS to use XACT or PiX adds a lot of cost and XACT target audience are audio designers, not developers.

Ok - but why don't open XACT or PIX in Visual Studio as a Plugin? I understand that it is not for developers, but developers still use it. I can imagine that it should be simple thing to open Xact as COM or other object and make for it plugin in VS. I can pay extra memory usage for this but I hate ALT+TAB switching just for looking in Xact. Anyway I still don't understand why we can't use XACT or PIX as plugin...

Bjoern Graf:

Why should everything be integrated for the sake of integration only? Yes, I'd like to see WPF in XNA (even the subset that is known as Silverlight now, hence the Bronzeglow project =]) but the media streaming features in Silverlight - which seems to be the current, big thing everyone talks about - does not make too much sense for XNA, especially as XNA does not have any network support (yet). If all teams did live in the same world, innovation (yes, this poor word is way to abused inside MS) would be limited by support of all platforms (Sidenote: I wonder how things were in respect to .NET support if the 360 featured a x86 compatibile CPU instead of the PowerPC one...) Anyway, diversity is not bad at all, demanding that new stuff is available everywhere at the split second it is released for another platform is :]

6 months (from .NET 3.0) and almost 1 year when WPF/e was shown is not a second, especially when they can do this same things on .NET Microframework. I still think that integration is not bad when we are talking about productivity.
You should look at Eclipse and support for different tools. Why Java developers can have nice tool which integrates with Flash, .NET, Java and other products?
Ok and why there is Visual Studio Team Edition - it integrates so many things (database development, tests, project management etc.) for different peoples in team (manager, tester, programmer, database manager, administrator, it designer) - because of productivity!

kierepka:

Ok - but why don't open XACT or PIX in Visual Studio as a Plugin? I understand that it is not for developers, but developers still use it. I can imagine that it should be simple thing to open Xact as COM or other object and make for it plugin in VS. I can pay extra memory usage for this but I hate ALT+TAB switching just for looking in Xact. Anyway I still don't understand why we can't use XACT or PIX as plugin...

It is also a matter of spending time (and money) on something not really required (how is ALT+TAB worse than CTRL+TAB?) and extending/adding features into the products.

kierepka:

6 months (from .NET 3.0) and almost 1 year when WPF/e was shown is not a second, especially when they can do this same things on .NET Microframework. I still think that integration is not bad when we are talking about productivity.

The MF implements different things than the CF on the 360. Also, the CF for the 360 is not done by the same team but the XNA people, who also had to do the XNA Framework implementation. Adding the Silverlight object tree, that I assume not everyone would use, would have delayed XNA...

kierepka:

You should look at Eclipse and support for different tools. Why Java developers can have nice tool which integrates with Flash, .NET, Java and other products?

Orcas integrates WPF designers for both, the "real" WPF and Silverlight, so the same level of integration will come to VS.

Anyway, we might need to stop here or the wrath of the Z might come upon this thread :)

Just last 2 cents:

Bjoern Graf:

It is also a matter of spending time (and money) on something not really required (how is ALT+TAB worse than CTRL+TAB?) and extending/adding features into the products.

I can't agree this is not metter of spending time - this is metter of vision for products...

Bjoern Graf:

The MF implements different things than the CF on the 360. Also, the CF for the 360 is not done by the same team but the XNA people, who also had to do the XNA Framework implementation. Adding the Silverlight object tree, that I assume not everyone would use, would have delayed XNA...

I still can't agree - CF for 360 was made by CompactFramework team - check thier web site: http://blogs.msdn.com/netcfteam/.

OK - EOT :)