The chart you link to is pretend to support the article. They don't have the divisions right - there is no "Office" division at MS. Even though they don't have it right, it still supports my argument - it shows Server and Tools doing more business than Windows. The "Business" division includes Office (with Project and Visio) and the ERP products - Dynamics and CRM. Here is a better breakdown of revenue by division.
 
My point was, Windows and Office do not represent anywhere near 95% of revenue, as the post I was responding to claimed. If you tease all these data sources, it looks like Server and Tools and the ERP/CRM portion of "Business" division represnts over a third of MS revenue.

Wow.
 
I get your sentiment, but you're just pulling numbers out of the sky now. Microsoft makes a huge chunk of cash from Server, SQL, Exchange, SharePoint, etc and the associated CALs for those products. They are also becoming a force in the small to mid-size ERP world with Dynamics. And you can't swing a dead cat without hitting another MS CRM installation.

As anyone that does anything near corporate IT shops knows, Microsoft's presence in the back office is not a "hobby."

You would think it is obvious but I have had the debate a few times recently with Slashdot-type people about what Google really is. It is a fascinating discussion.
 
If I am in an airport using my netbook with Chrome OS and the Chrome browser, checking gmail and Google Docs, and I log into Facebook on my Android phone (I use an iPhone, but play along), there will come a day when an ad will pop up, "hey bazonic, like that cougar in the blue dress sitting across the aisle from you? she works in technology too, a DB guru to be exact. wanna start a chat?" I look up and she's on her Android phone too.
 
Google will drive the Minority Report-type world were are entering. There will be a ton of useful things that come from that world. It's spooky to be sure, but it's going to interesting to watch.

Chrome is Google's bid to change the browser market to make it a better platform for their core business, web applications.

Web applications are not their core business. Everything Google does - search, mobile data centers, Android, IPTV, Chrome, and yes, web apps, are all funnels and compliments to the thing that drives their cashflow - advertising. Everything they do is an effort to get a specific, targeted ad in front of your eyeballs. They do a lot of cool projects and experimenting, and from that other things will grow, but it all comes back to ads.

Aside from pointing out the flaws in your analogy, and the fact a patch was released four months before this exploit arrived, I think you are overlooking the massive systemic benefits of homogeny.

One could argue that computing and the Internet would not be as ubiquitous as they are today without having had a defacto standard. There is an even stronger argument at the cost savings to businesses and governments in not having to train and retrain new employees on how to use numerous computer systems.

And as far as "companies getting taken offline," there is no excuse for leaving production systems unpatched for four months. Microsoft could not make it easier to apply security updates unless they came onsite and installed them for you. That's not as much a convicted monopolist issue as it is shoddy, lazy network management.

Totally. This is reason we need sensible regulations. History shows us that when humans are left to their own devices and money is involved, we cannot be trusted. Greed must recognized and factored into our systems of checks and balances, and not just in the finacial industry, but any place money and power are involved.

I think you missed the spirit of my post.
 
I'm not talking about the CIA or the NSA, or even my ISP. A potential employer, or anyone for that matter, cannot find me on Facebook by searching my real name. That is all I'm trying to prevent. Someone who knows what I look like and knows my friends and family could easily triangulate my identity. Those are not the people from whom I'm trying to protect my privacy.
 
Would a human that knows what I look like be able to match my account to my real identity? Absolutely. Would a marketer who has been sold the FB database be able to? No. Like I said, they can know a great deal about my pseudonym, but tying that data to my real identity would currently be impossible without a human (one that knows what I look like) getting involved.

This is precisely the reason my gf and I use pseudonyms on Facebook that are linked to throw away email accounts. My friends and family in meatspace know my handle, and that's all I really want on my friend list. Facebook can still gather a lot of data about me, but it cannot be connected to my real identity. My big fear was having potential employers or clients getting a peek behind the curtain into my real world, and that just can't happen.
 
I wonder how many bright 18 year olds will have political or high end corporate careers derailed because of data indiscretions as a youth. I'm glad this wasn't around when I was kid because all my youthful stupidity would have been captured forever.

That was my first thought too - the poor bastards who are managing institutions with hundreds of servers are going to have to migrate, test, tweak/rewrite all their apps in less than six months? IT Confucius say: technology timelines handed down by government are doomed to fail.
 
Great intent, but this isn't going to be pretty.

This is good advice and the first post that actually adresses the OP's question.
 
I would add that a good remote control setup is important for those times when a shortcut gets accidentally renamed or a menu gets dragged off an app. I also highly recommend formatting with a clean install of Windows and not an OEM version. Dell, HP, Sony, et. al. all have tons of "helper ware" that just seems to get in the way and cause confusion.