Your current platform does not support the video plugins necessary to view NCAA® March Madness® on Demand.

You will need to switch to a supported platform in order to continue.

Standard Video Player Platform Requirements

* Microsoft Windows XP/Vista
* Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 or above
* Microsoft Windows Media Player 9 or above

High Quality Video Player Platform Requirements

* Microsoft Silverlight 2 (Click here to view system requirements)

Click here to return to the NCAA® March Madness® on Demand home page

For additional information, please visit the Help Center (opens in new window)

2. Siverlight is going to hit all the platforms it needs to hit, including mobile. Nothing more needs to be said.

3. You can’t use an argument that because people are still exposed to flash, then they can’t benefit from the added security of Silverlight. I also didn’t say that flash can’t ever be optimized; I merely stated that it WASN’T as optimized as Silverlight.

4. You show a consistent level of distain and disrespect for anyone who doesn’t share your dislike for Microsoft because you assume that the "herd" is simply too ignorant and/or intellectually challenged to share your views. I think it’s unfortunate that you show so much arrogance and self righteousness.

2. You were defending Silverlight’s platform constraints with the similar history of Flash. So Silverlight’s obviously not an improvement in that regard, is it?

3. I questioned the two only other arguments you had in favor of Silverlight, which were better security and lower system requirements. The former I invalidated with simple logic and you don’t seem to dispute that. The latter is still questionable, because you don’t have an apples to apples comparison and Microsoft themselves attribute the performance advantage to the codec in use. I personally doubt that the negligeble (compared to the decoding) rendering part makes much of a difference. You won’t be able to prove that smooth HD playback on netbooks isn’t achievable with Flash technology by definition anyway, which would be the only way to warrant your claim of Silverlight’s technological superiority (see your other post’s title).

4. You were asking for alternatives, which is besides the point. A lack thereof doesn’t defeat Silverlight’s weak spots and – more importantly – it doesn’t relieve you of mentioning them, if you want to write an unbiased article.

There’s nothing religious about my ciriticism or a dislike for a company’s market dominance in general and I feel sorry for you if you honestly don’t realize that. I also feel sorry for your readers which you obviously see as an unreflecting herd of sheep with no sense of consequence. It now makes perfect sense that your articles try not to burden them with weighing the pros and cons of a technology or product for themselves.

You have a right to criticize Microsoft, though you’re wrong about many things. For one thing, the difference between Silverlight and Flash isn’t just the compression algortithm. I can play H.264 files just fine on netbooks using VLC or Media Player Classic and K-Lite Mega Pack with roughly comparable CPU utilization to VC-1. As for the alternatives you mention, they’re not alternatives at all and you’re ignoring this question by changing the subject and attacking my objectivity.

Your complaints about Silverlight boils down to the fact that you don’t like Microsoft’s market dominance rather than the actual technology itself. That may be fine for you, but it’s irrelevant to consumers because they don’t care about any your personal religious wars and they just want something that works.

I’ve read a few of your other posts and have to agree with linuxforme. I could come up with a couple of better suited titles for the blog now, but you’re apparently not prepared to openly admit your bias. Microsoft and Intel already have the biggest marketing budgets in the industry, so I fail to see the point in providing free advertisement for them on a private blog, but it’s your right as a blogger to follow whatever urges you might feel.