| 1. |
QAD Ends Its Protracted Dry Season, Not Yet On an Easy Street ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Apr 11, 2000
Abstract : QAD Inc. reported $0.06 of diluted net income per share, or net income of $2.1 million, on record total revenue of $70.9 million for the fourth fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2000. This compares with $0.16 of diluted net loss per share or a net loss of $4.9 million on total revenue of $65.4 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 1999.
|
| 2. |
Interview with Jeff Bates of SourceForge.net, Slashdot, and the OSTG ( Pages)
by Josh Chalifour
Jul 26, 2005
Abstract : Jeff Bates's experience in developing and managing SourceForge.net and Slashdot communities sheds light on encouraging the interest of participants in the open source community. He discusses important technology considerations toward aiding distributed software development efforts.
|
| 3. |
Epicor Claims The Forefront Of CRM.NET-ification Part 1 ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Jun 11, 2002
Abstract : By harnessing .NET possibly more zealously than its creator Microsoft’s Great Plains and Navision enterprise counterparts, and while difficult market conditions continue to persist, Epicor might be showing us that ‘a brave heart and wise mind’ can keep it in the mid-market leadership race amongst aslew of formidable opponents.
|
| 4. |
Sun’s Java Won’t Be In Microsoft’s .NET – Complicate Your Integration? You .BET ( Pages)
by M. Reed
Feb 19, 2001
Abstract : Sun and Microsoft have announced a settlement in Sun’s lawsuit regarding Microsoft’s use of Java technology. Microsoft was given the choice of conforming to the Java standard or opting out and they chose to opt out. Under terms of the agreement Microsoft cannot use Java in their forthcoming .NET initiative. Of course both vendors claim victory, but inevitably it will be the customer who loses.
|
| 5. |
Understand J2EE and .NET Environments Before You Choose ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Dec 8, 2004
Abstract : The Microsoft .NET versus J2EE platform argument often takes on the vehemence of a religious debate. Choosing one may amount to
|
| 6. |
Microsoft .NET-managed Code Enablement: Examples and Challenges ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Oct 5, 2006
Abstract : Intuitive, Visibility, and Epicor offer .NET Framework-managed code products, but their
|
| 7. |
Microsoft .NET Enablement: Analysis and Cautions ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Oct 4, 2006
Abstract : Using technologies that are intrinsically compatible should result in faster and less costly development. Thus, any application suite rewritten in the Microsoft .NET managed code framework should not have to contend with inefficiencies resulting from mixing or wrapping technologies.
|
| 8. |
Examples of Microsoft .NET Enablement ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Oct 3, 2006
Abstract : SYSPRO and Epicor are examples of .NET-enabled legacy software systems that have partly been componentized (rewritten), with
|
| 9. |
Subtle (or Not-so-subtle) Nuances of Microsoft .NET Enablement ( Pages)
by P.J. Jakovljevic
Oct 2, 2006
Abstract : The Microsoft .NET strategy continues to confuse many, due to the lack of understanding of the technology. Indeed, because of the massive marketing campaign undertaken by Microsoft, many vendors have adopted a
|
CART 
