Microsoft’s major success has been Windows (although they’ve made more money from products like Office). Now, they seem hell-bent on making sure that success is the root of their demise.

Microsoft’s products have traditionally reached their zenith in the third version.

Save for experimenters, we all ignored Windows 1 and even Windows 2.1 was an acknowledged dog, but it held promise. The first usable version, with serious networking capability, was Windows 3.1. Although still built atop DOS, we could finally do something productive with Windows. We got used to WYSIWYG.

Windows 95 was a dramatic improvement, but needed to be reinstalled every year or so just to keep it running. Windows 98 was much more solid, and morphed quietly into the product-extending “Second Edition,” which was an operating system that most homes and businesses adopted. Windows Millenium Edition (Me) was a throwback to Windows 98, with added features few found useful.

Finally, in a break with DOS, Microsoft turned to “New Technology.” Windows NT was, for all intents and purposes, an ignored product save for use on Servers. Because it was the first real “server” technology Microsoft sold, NT had a life in corporate America, but few individuals used it. It was quickly supplanted by the dramatically more stable Windows 2000, with more Internet and user-interface features. While limited, it was still a productive tool, and now crashes no longer took down the entire system, which was a boon in business, and in 24x7 servers. It was Windows XP (Windows 2000 with bug fixes, and a new “glossy” appearance) that finally took over the world; XP drove virtually all the earlier operating systems out of the inventory during it’s decade of dominance.

But, Microsoft couldn’t resist tampering: They designed anew and emerged with Vista, and both customers were happy. It was slow, buggy, and poorly thought out, like many of Microsoft’s “first version” products. They reasonably quickly moved to Windows 7, with a cleaner user interface, but still plagued by all kinds of security impositions on users and a complicated security model that only a security expert could navigate. Even though Microsoft forced Windows 7 on new computer buyers, most of them actually installed Windows XP (if they knew how) to regain access to familiar tools and a well-known user interface.

Based on the trend, you might expect that Microsoft has been readying Windows 8 to be the real successor to Windows 7but Microsoft has decided to follow short-term marketing trends to make the product utterly incompatible with user’s expectations: They abandoned the “Start” menu, changed to the “Metro” interface copied from cellphones, and they’re not catering to any of the millions of users who recognize XP is already wickedly obsolete, but saw Windows Vista and Windows 7 as a trip sideways, not a step up.

It’s as if Microsoft has decided that Windows 8 should be the start of yet another line of operating systems, and it will be a dog to learn and use for the next two generations.

But, worse, how will Microsoft replace all the Windows XP systems out there that Windows 8 can’t even emulate? How many retail computer systems, restaurant cash registers, laptops as field-service tools (etc.) are going to go without a new replacement because Microsoft has arbitrarily decided to cater to the “smartphone” and “tablet” users, who don’t have to deal with unique peripheral devices (e.g., receipt printers), or have the robustness that business demands? And, efforts to lockout users from changing their operating system, and creating a “closed ecosystem” for hardware and software products means that Microsoft will pursue the Apple strategyall the way down to Apple’s nominal 10% of the computer market (Apple is an electronic products company, with computers as just another electronic product).

It appears to me that, this time, Microsoft has left their customers in the lurch, focused on the entertainment value of computers, and left the barn door wide open for the now-stable Linux implementations that are cheaper and virtually modeled on the XP experience. Users will find that familiarity preferable to “idiot buttons” limited to eight-per-screen. This may be the final “execution” of Microsoft, by letting the marketers drive product features without much understanding of what people actually want and need for their productivity, and the productivity of their businesses.

I believe that Microsoft has made their fatal blunder: It will break their “stranglehold” on new computer makers, used to delivering the latest Windows version on all new systems; if customers don’t want it, how will they sell computers? They will break the contract model Microsoft has forced them into over the past two decades, and then computer makers will start delivering Linux systems with an XP-like look, at lower cost.

The main question is: How fast will Microsoft recover from this major strategic blunder, orwhen they don’twhich Linux distribution will dominate the desktop computer market in the late teens of this Century?

...you're able to think critically, and to discern which evidence is relevant to the case in point. I don't care if you can use the Simplex method to invert a sparse 100x100 matrix in your head, but I DO care, as an employer, that you know what the Simplex method is, when it would be useful to apply, and what class of problems it can be used to solve. So, higher math is just evidence to me, your prospective employer, that you're not prone to take the easy way out, to rely on trusted (but irrelevant) methods, that you can seek out new solutions when they are called for. Without that breadth of background in the "thinking arts," you are doomed to a life of programming what others design. Most of the people who claim certain languages don't support certain advanced math features are just exposing their lack of imagination; they are coders, not programmers.

Your ignorance of the utility of the Concorde is, like an earlier poster, astounding. From London to New York, I could have meetings in the morning, and meetings the same day, four hours later in New York (4.5 for Dulles/Washington). That improved my productivity and saved many sophisticated business opportunities from running off the rails.

Your ignorance of the flight regimes of the Concorde are astounding. Remember, it flew at Mach 2 (and very quite inside the cabin, as I can confirm as a passenger), and that produces "sonic boom" across the landscape; over water there are few people, so little source of complaints. Sure, the Concorde "is nor more noisy than a normal jet..." only if you consider the XB-70 the exemplar of a "normal jet."

The available maps of service areas, and specific locations of infrastructure, are held as potential "terrorist assets" (although, through typical "security theater," they don't bother saying how attacked on these components would be attractive to some would be terrorist, who'd be much more likely to attack and contaminate the water system).

Basically, telcos--aided and abetted by the government--make broad and extravagant claims about coverage (why, right here where I live, the "Desolation wildnerness" prohibits entry except on foot or horseback, and there are no addresses there, but, if maps are to be believed, the area has marvelous high-speed coverage for Internet services).

For my county alone (aobut 88,000 households and businesses), I am planning a "primary research" survey to find out who has Internet service, and who doesn't). Do do that on a national scale will require tremendous effort and cost.

I know that visiting my local Forest Ranger District HQ recently got me a map of all the cell sites within their jurisdiction, but that would require individual visits to the thousands of sites the govenment own across the Country.

So, to be clear: The precision of data you can get from telcos and the regulatory agencies is as precise as those "coverage maps" for their "cellular service area;" Dramatically more aspirational than factual.

1) If you want to be understood. Can you imagine a judge issuing a decision in a case with bad grammar? It only inspires hundreds of unnecessary future cases, to litigate "what the judge really meant." Grammar represents the social rules of how literate people communicate. And, intentional violation of grammatical rules is the stuff of art: You represent the school teacher in a novel by giving their lines grammatical correctness; you represent the village idiot with the LACK of good grammar. Legal documents, professional publications, technical manuals are all most productive of positive outcomes when writter within the accepted grammatical rules of the language. See "Strunk & White." (And, yes, grammar changes over time, which is why so many people fail to appreciate Shakespeare in the original.) 2) If you want to be perceived as credible. Ah kin skribble to mah kin, but do you think those are the words of someone you'd trust to invest in? Business plans, project proposals, provocative ideas, scientific papers are rejected by readers if the authors' text is ungrammatical, because they project the writer's image as one with little reasoning power (with Mark Twain and WIll Rogers as credible exceptions, because of the obvious intentionality behind the text), and therefore render the entire text as unreliable. Imagine where Higgs' Boson would be if Einstein had--despite writing in other than his native tongue--written in poor grammatical form, Would it even have a name? So, argue against rules of grammar all you want, make fun of the grammatically accomplished...and live your life impoverished in the process. --Carol Anne

Ah, another vote for fluid, situational ethics. That'll get you lots of moral support from the criminal community!

What are you trying to do, make a living or change the world? (You generally can't do both at once; if you get rich from work, you can THEN maybe change the world.)

Let's start with the basics: What's in it for YOU? Is open source a buzzword, something you think you have to do ethically, just don't have the chops to turn it into a business, it based on other open source code? Is income something you vitally need to continue your work, to live a better life, or are you independently wealthy (I think you've ruled out the latter)?

I agree with an earlier poster: Make the core code that delivers basic utility to the user open source, if you want to use it as your "loss leader" to show them what's possible. Include all the extra features in the menus or configuration options of your program, so users can see what they're missing (clicking on it opens a window telling them it's in the commercial product, if they'd just buy it).

But, remember, open source is just a way for other people to leverage your code and make it into a competitive product...some will even violate your license agreement, and modify it to suit their customer base. Do you really want to spawn your own competitors?

An interview that just plows the same old ground is worthless; if it yields new insights that others can glean, it could be priceless.

I'm betting it's the former.

...because I use Lotus Domino/Notes. Creating new databases with specialized forms and views takes, oh, maybe an hour. As owner/operator of two business, one new start-up, plus sitting on both public and private boards of directors, I never thought I'd be this busy. But, I know exactly what I have to do every day with the built-in calendar and eMail. When I send an eMail, it's logged, so I can find it (and the responses).

As one example: I keep a Technology database of hard-won knowledge and acquired information about fixing computers (my own, private Knowledgebase). When (as just the other day) I discover a new solution (the nasty uses by malware authors of the HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Image File Execution Options registry key, and how to clean it out), I document it, so I have the solution on my notebook wherever I go. When I find new information and add it to the database in the field, it's immediately copied back to the server for others to use when I return to the office.).

I expect many of you to issue the usual gripes and outrageous claims about Lotus Domino/Notes, but unless you really build apps for it in a hour, you don't even understand the power of the product. I've been using it since 1992, and it's STILL the primary tool on every computer in my company.

Sure, you'll save a few bucks...for a few months. Then, things will start failing. You'll find there're no hardware drivers for many of the parts inside, and when people start finding mechanical parts, like pushbuttons, sockets and controls, falling off, you'll discover that the caseworks maker doesn't sell spare parts. Also, as mentioned above, you'll have to pay for Windows licenses (unless you're moving to Ubuntu, too). I've got lots of happy clients, because I keep replacing the crap they have (e.g., the computer with a touch-screen display that overheats every Summer day afternoon) with brand-name products. They pay me my comparatively higher prices (considering the local dolts who call themselves my "competition") because I deliver stable, reliable systems that they never have to worry about (until, like yesterday, a UPS went up in smoke...quick to fix that one). Stick with reputable makers. Avoid the small storefronts that will "build yours" and put in everything cheap, but charge you somewhat less than brand-name products. Heck, I've only been in this computer business for over half-a-century, so my experience probably will be punished by others with a more "home-brew" bent...but you said it's a business, not a bunch of students. You should take a good look at whether, over the entire life (which will inevitably be more than 18 months!), you'll have made a good bargain. I'd wager that "white box clones" will end up saving you nothing.

Quickbooks now allows you to download transactions, semi-automatically (you have to go through them and edit them, in some cases, so you know what was the transaction was for. Then, export the data from Quickbooks for further analysis. Ever since Quickbooks added the "download transactions" functionality, my bank accounts are NEVER out of balance in my records, monthly reconciliation typically takes me 3-5 minutes/month/account, and (because I use "Memo" fields extensively), I can always search for a particular transaction.

I recommend everyone have three passwords, for situations that demand High, Medium and Low security. Your bank and credit card accounts, and places where you have to supply a bank or credit card number (e.g., a site where you purchase stuff) deserve High security. Places on the Internet where your identity is at stake (e.g., do you want a criminal sending eMails from your account?) deserve Medium security. And, finally, you need a "throwaway," Low security passwords for those situations where you are required to provide a password, but you don't sense a security need (e.g., a password required to read a newspaper online; do you really care if someone else uses your password to read that same news?). But, mind you, three is not a magic number. If you have need for four security levels, by all means, select four...or more. Or, if you have different passwords for your business and your family matters, set up two sets of passwords (say, three for the office, and four for home).

Now I'd like to show you a way to create a High security password that's easy to remember, in xx easy steps:

1) Pick a word that connects with you, one that isn't particularly obvious. It might be a term of art in a hobby (not "woodworking" but, perhaps, "dovetail," not "stamps" but "philatelist."). Make it a longer word if you have more concerns about security. You can use very longs words, like "antidisestablishmentarianism," but make sure you can easily remember it (for purposes of illustration, I've picked "philatelist").

2) Pick a short string of digits, but don't use your age, your home address, or some part of your Social Security number, or other common information other people already know about you. And never use your bank account number as a password! I like to pick a word (say, that word you use to refer to some silly event in your past that still produces a smile), tap it out on the telephone touchpad, and write down those digits. Now there's a number that's hard to guess! Or, pick the month and day of an important date (but avoid those dates easy to learn or guess, like your birthday). Let's use "3981" for our example.

3) Now, take the word you picked, and break it into two parts (most people like to split on syllable boundaries, but you can pick, say, the first six letters, leaving all the rest. Write down the two parts on a piece of paper, separated by some space (you'd see "phila", some space, and then "telist").

4) Now, insert the digits you created in step #2 in the space between the two parts; you get "phila3981telist".

5) Finally, capitalize some of the letters. Capitalizing the first letter of each of the two parts is fairly obvious; maybe you'd like to make it a bit more complex and captialize the second letter in each string, ending up with "pHila3981tElist."
That makes your password easier to remember (it's a word and string of digits you know, with your own personal preference on positioning of the parts and the capitalization).

From this you can easily use use the first two-thirds or the last two-thirds for your Medium-security password (e.g., "pHila3981" or "3981tElist"; just pick one, and remember that).

Finally, for a throw-away password, just pick some easy part of your Medium-security password (e.g., "3981t"; notice I included one of the letters, too; some websites refuse all-digit passwords).

Within a couple of days, you'll have easily remembered three different passwords, none of which are easy to guess. And, you won't have to keep them written down, anywhere (however, I always recommend you write them down and store them in a safe, or a bank deposit drawer, in case you're incapacitated and somebody needs to legitimately act like you to pay the mortgage, etc.)

I hope this helps someone else, too.

--Carol Anne (Copyright 2009, Carol Anne Ogdin)

Okay, so my 53 years trumps your 15. The issue is that by installing Chrome in profile directories, you've left it completely read/write-capable. That means some malware can simply change the executable at boot time to what ever they'd prefer to put in place, and there's no protection. When it's in the %ProgramFiles% structure, however, I can set the permissions (like Windows 7 does, by default, with the "TrustedInstaller" service, or like most of us who care about security do with prohibiting writing to executables by imposing an Administrator's permissions as the only "Write" authority.) Generally, things in the %ProgramFiles% structure should be--under proper security--virtually invulnerable to malware attempting to corrupt software, while data, largely in the "Profiles", can be read and written freely. Perhaps that's not a security vulnerability in your world, but it certainly is in mine.

...when it installs itself, in Windows, at %Userprofile%\Application Data\Google Chrome? That is just amateur programming, and is a real beast if you're in an Active Directory environment with Roaming Profiles, 'cause the damn software keeps getting copied to/from the server with ever logon/logoff. I understand Google might consider compliance with separation of programs from their data might be "difficult," but the ease with which any malmare can corrupt Chrome because of it's lack of installation security make Chrome a pariah in our environment, and I've banned it from all our and client computers!