Microsoft At Middle Age 616
gordyf writes "The Seattle Times has an interesting article concerning Microsoft's current position in the market. It describes how its customers and parners are reacting to its heavy-handed tactics, and how 'you can point to Linux being one of the major drivers for this decade.' An interesting read."
MS Propoganda all week!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Middle aged?!! (Score:5, Funny)
God help us when they go through the teen years and start experimenting with drugs and plotting to kill us.
Yep (Score:5, Funny)
That just about says it right there.
Re:Yep (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, code bloat accompanies improvements. But is that really such a big deal? Newer computers can handle it. If you've got an old computer, don't upgrade.
Anyway, you can see the same trends in Linux. I mean Linux distros aren't getting any smaller. And the newest window managers definitely take some processing power. But if you don't like it, who's forcing you to upgrade?
Re:Yep (Score:5, Interesting)
For the record, Gnome 2 is generally faster and has lower system requirements than Gnome 1.4.
Re:Yep (Score:3, Informative)
I can tune the current CURRENT release of Linux to run with lesser resources. This means that I get contemporary kernel features and device driver support. I am also not limited to legacy applications.
How well does USB or Firewire work with Win95?
With your example, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, although XP isn't perfect, I've anecdotally heard a lot of positive comments regarding it's UI. Sometimes you HAVE to change things around to make something more intuitive. Sure, you and I are very used to the win9x interface, but a new computer user may find XP more user friendly. Human's naturally resist change, so don't mistake change as "less user friendly" in this scenario.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it doesn't look exactly like Win2k. The individual UI elements go back to looking like Win2K, but button placement menu structure and such are all still XP.
And you still get those annoying talk balloons from the systray. Until you turn them off, which is a few more clicks.
And you still get nagged about Windows Update, even if you are offline (wtf?!? how does it know there are updates available? I got this nag before I ever even connected the machine to the internet). Few more clicks to turn that off.
And you still have MSN messenger running. If you don't use it, few more clicks to turn that off too.
And you still have to turn off that god damned motherfucking filename extension hiding bullshit that has plagued mankind since the days of Windows 95, ARGH!!!!!! Few more clicks to turn that off too (but to be fair Win2K had this problem too).
Bunch of clicks to NOT sign up for Passport when XP was first installed.
Bunch of clicks to do the product activation.
Etc. You can't fix it with "just a few clicks", unless you consider installing w2k to be "just a few clicks".
Re:Yep...recompilation of the kernel anyone..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I regularly tune and recompile my linux kernels to support the specific hardware I have on my eclectic assortment of old boxes (P100s etc..). This fine tuning makes the kernel run quicker, and allows me to lower the disk and memory footprint. (P.S. I burn CDs that contain these unique kernels as recovery disks - so no worries on catastrophic failures). You don't have to live with a bloated 'one size fits all' distribution if you don't want to under linux. Not so for windows (unless you pay a price of course).
I have all of this flexibility in Linux for free. Windows can't beat that.
It is a big deal for me. I demand quality over quantity and glitz. Windows does not deliver.
Re:Yep...recompilation of the kernel anyone..? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about Red Hat 8.0, but I'm running Red Hat 7.3 on a Pentium 167 laptop with 96mb of Ram and about 3GB of disk space... It runs everything pretty well, albeit not as quickly as I'd prefer... The only problem I've noticed is that you can pretty much forget about running anything java-based on it (Forte, for example, dies a morbid death). This doesn't affect me that much, though -- almost everything for Linux is written in C++, so the stuff I'm using runs fairly well.
I think it comes down to what sort of apps you're running. If you're just using productivity stuff, and doing programming (in anything except java, that is) you're probably going to be fine.
In contrast, man, I wouldn't even TRY to get Windows 2000 or XP running on one of my pokey little laptops. 'Course, Windows 98 seems to run ok, if you're into that sort of thing. And, I have heard a rumor about a friend of mine putting Windows XP on a Pentium 100, and he swears it works, but then, he and I are always fencing about windows vs. Linux, so he may just be toying with me.
FYI...
Win2k on slow machine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse explorer.exe with win32.
You don't need the KDE desktop to run KDE.
That level of modularity simply doesn't exist under a vertically integrated platform such as WinDOS.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know why you think its so bad that they have added features. Thats a pretty natural progression of software development. Look at Linux, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, etc.
Re:Yep: Nope! (Score:3, Funny)
If XP is so stable, why were the major vendors all offering downgrade CDs with every new computer sold to business? Because XP was, and still is, a "real piece" not suitable for business users.
As for Office 2003 "offering usability improvements", this is the same old song and dance we've heard since the early '80's and Windows 3.0.
Anyway, if BSOD jokes are so '96, how come I've seen them in '98, ME, 2000, and XP? The only way to make Windows stable is to remove either the power cord or the end user.
Re:Yep: Nope! (Score:4, Informative)
Granted this is not comparable to the year+ I get out of my Linux boxes, but it's much better than the hour+ I used to get with Win95.
The reason that downgrade CD's are offered is because Buisnesses have no "good reason" for the XP upgrade and many of their Apps are Win2000 certified. Much the same as why they offered downgrades for Win98 boxes. Do you think 95 was more stable than 98?? No. The reason was because of app compatibility for large enterprises.
The Win2000 workstation I am typing this on is now up 39 days, 2 hours. My Debian Workstation is up 25 days, 1 hour.
I like to bash Windows as much as the next guy. But the constant criticisims on Windows stability are quickly becoming moot. M$ knows who they're competing with, and is making headway on matching Linux stability. Linux competes on cost, Windows competes on user experience. If the Linux coders had the single-minded devotion that MS does, we would have been improving our user experience while Windows was getting more stable. Instaead we were fostering the KDE/Gnome wars. (F*** 'em both use WindowMaker! *YAWN*)
For both Windows and Linux, a stable machine requires a knowledgeable Administrator for stability. Mine does gaming, programming, real-time MPEG/DIVX encoding, file serving, playback, and is the family room TV. (God bless 36" monitors.) Better than a month unless a reboot before games (it's a habit) and best uptime around 60 days. The only blue screen I've ever seen was while installing. Linux has a problem with my Hauppage card and was not stable on the same hardware. (Hence WinXP) Granted, it may have been the set-up of the TV card, but who's to say your opinion of XP is not due to a piece of hardware you had at the time?
And while Linux may never crash on me, KDE and Gnome crash regularly. (CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE) When will you Linux folks get it together? KDE = WINDOWS = OS for most folks. They think the command line is just where you type "startx".
Re:Yep (Score:3)
Everyone does it, it's just a question of to what extreme it is done.
The visual image (Score:5, Funny)
A little crazy from the pressure, outwardly appearing both eager and desperate, balding, and starting to stain at the armpits.
(Anyone got a URL for the remixed version of the video?)
Evil picture of Mr Gates! (Score:5, Funny)
His eyes are boring into your soul, searching for unlicenced copies of Windows...
Re:Evil picture of Mr Gates! (Score:4, Funny)
midlife (Score:5, Funny)
you mean it's going to die in 28 years?! woohoo!
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So, 10 years from now... (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft will be at old age, thus helping the viagra market!
Thanks a lot. Now I can't get rid of this image of Steve Ballmer doing a happy dance in a Viagra commercial.
Don't get all excited (Score:5, Insightful)
MS is a superpower. If they told everyone they plan on cornering the stock market, and taking over the world, people STILL would be buying their product. Face it people, if there is going to be a change, it will happen slowly.
I'm not saying Linux is bad, or that there is no way it will ever take over MS, I'm just saying don't expect it to happen overnight (or in the next 5 years, for that matter).
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of MS like the tobacco industry!
Its bad for you.
Everyone knows it.
Yet there are millions of smokers, kids learn it early, there are thousands of Tobacco farmers that would be out of a job, and the industry is so big, no one could topple it.
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes they do, they are just called minesweeper and pinball. Those two little games can be damn addictive. And even if you uncheck the Games box during install, they are still put on the computer, you just don't have the ready to use shortcuts in the start menu.
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:3, Insightful)
MS may have some heavy-handed, and even illegal, tactics. But they don't lace their computers with a highly addictive substance.
Uh, actually they do. It's called "vendor lock-in" and Bruce Perens has likened it to an addictive substance. I wish I could supply a link but his website appears to be down right now.
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:5, Interesting)
I would say operating systems AND tobacco are similar when it comes to addictions. Yesterday at the gas station, I watched a customer insist on purchasing some obscure brand of smokes. He was so picky for the right one, with the exact size, and exact type of box, that he might die if just one thing changed about the package. It may just be nicotine, the same stuff in pipe tobacco, but he had to have his brand recognition matched exactly like if it was a member of his family.
Many people buy completely into branding. Even though there might be a bulk generic product, they will think its the curse of the devil and the fall of civilization if it doesn't have brand stamping on it. Operating systems, cigarrettes, cars, motorcycles, soft drinks, you name it. Linux vs. Mac vs. Windows is just heating up and the boundries are just beginning.
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:5, Funny)
- the best crops are created through a community effort in cross breeding
- the only thing you'll have to actually pay for are the initial seeds (think CD's)
- works well in server environments (bong) as well as desktop (hash pipe) and portable (joint) implementations
- companies will initially be leery of this but inevitably everyone's going to have to wonder what this "linux" thing is that's becoming so popular
- a sense of kinship is felt among users (read: Free Love)
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody stays on top forever. In fact, the really big [fordham.edu] dogs [us-highways.com] who like to abuse their power [usdoj.gov] are the ones who tend to fall apart the fastest.
Microsoft is a big, inflexible company. I'm not saying they're going to go chapter 11 or anything, but I do believe that they might become startlingly irrelevant in a very short amount of time like IBM did in the 80's-90's. Ironically, for IBM, it was an inability to see the OS as the real market; for MS, it'll be an inability to see that the OS is no longer the real market...
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, as far as Standard Oil goes, you will need someone of with the level of itergrity that Teddy Roosevelt had. And that is certainly not in the cards with the current administration. Moreover, IMHO that kind of politician is dead. Parties control the system, and bid corporations control the parties, BOTH of them. If Teddy were around toda, I can't say that he would have split MS up, but he wouldn't have taken kindly to the string-arm tactics that have foced a lot of the small fish out of the market.
I can say, however, that if Teddy were here today, he'd sure would have loved that Dear Hunter game.
MicroChannel Architecture (Score:4, Interesting)
Their arrogance cost them dearly.
Palladium,
I think that within 2 years there will be a mass exodus from Microsoft by developers, OEMs, large and small business sites, and finally, even home computer users.
May you live in interesting times, Mr. Gates.
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL!
I think it's funny that just because you aren't aware of what a company is doing you suddenly think they are irrelevant.
Let's use another example. General Motors. Used to have 50% of the automobile marketshare, now they have around 20%. Are they irrelevant? They are the 2nd largest employer in the US(Wal-Mart is first but those are mostly part-time), and you can't go one day to the next without at some point using a service or product that they're behind in some way. But because you aren't aware of every thing they touch, they are invisible to you? Much like IBM today.
"Ironically, for IBM, it was an inability to see the OS as the real market; for MS, it'll be an inability to see that the OS is no longer the real market..."
There was much more to it than that. IBM certainly suffered from the innovators dilemna. But they got themselves into a situation where they were afraid to lose. They didn't commit the full resources to OS/2 that it needed to succeed. They weren't willing to admit quickly that they were wrong with Microchannel architecture, and so forth.
If MS didn't understand that the OS isn't the real market, they wouldn't be moving in so many directions at once. From online web services, to XBox, to applications, to development technologies and so on and so forth. Sure some of these are failures, but many aren't. But Thomas Watson who made IBM the great power that it was understood the secret to success is to risk failure. When IBM became risk adverse, they went on the decline.
That is what is so interesting about their push for Linux now... it's a tremendous risk. Maybe it works for them, maybe it doesn't... but it's different from their past strategies.
I'm afraid you suffer from wishful thinking, my friend. Don't worry, it is a common trait on
My take (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, Microsoft needs to become better for security, stability, and development. Losing all the annoying bells and whistles (ala, the default installation of XP) would be a plus.
The real question is, which one will happen first.
Re:My take (Score:5, Interesting)
GUI is just a small part of the real battlefield: functionality. Sooner or later, Linux is going to blow past MS in terms of user experience due simply to the fact that they can pick-and-choose which bits to emulate (fast-launching browser in, annoying Clippy and friends out). At that point, it won't matter if MS gives away Windows because nobody'll want it anyhow. The only way they'll survive is if they can consistantly innovate new, useful features at a reasonable price to stay ahead of the curve, something which MS has *never* been able to do.
So, MS will have to flee off the desktop to other things the OSS community doesn't do well -- game development, console systems, etc. There, they'll have to compete in a far more level playing environment and will in the long term probably get their monopolostic asses handed to them by smaller, faster companies.
How can I predict this? Because that's how things work with most industries which don't exist as regulatory monopolies. I don't see software being any different -- in fact, I predict the decline of MS on the desktop will come so quickly that if you blink you'll miss it.
Re:My take (Score:3, Interesting)
Ease of use is only one small part of the picture. That is why Microsoft outsold the Macintosh even before Windows came out. No one in their right mind would tell you that DOS + Wordperfect + Lotus 1 2 3 was easier to use than the comparable Macintosh software, but this wacky combination of OS and applications outsold Apple's best by an order of magnitude. The Apples were easy to use, but the DOS-based solution was good enough at a far lower price.
When push comes to shove it is all about being good enough at the lowest price. Currently, for most folks anyway, part of being "good enough" is being able to share software and documents with the large Windows using crowd. This requirement puts Linux at a serious disadvantage. However, marketshare is a pretty flimsy protection (ask Novell, Lotus, and the original makers of WordPerfect).
Re:Don't get all excited (Score:4, Insightful)
If Linux starts pecking away at their two cash cows, they won't be able to lose billions on a non profitable anti-competitive ventures. Their stranglehold on the market is loosened.
I know it's not happening overnight, but I think withing 5 years Linux could very well oust M$. 5 years is an eternity in the IT industry.
Think of how far Linux has come in the past 5 years. Now think how far M$ has come.
The proof that MICROSOFT is EVIL (Score:5, Funny)
Turn the number backwards, subtract 1957 - the year DEC was founded. The number is now 21777.
Subtract 7491 from the number - this is the year Aleister Crowley paid a longer visit to hell, written backwards. It gives 14286.
Multiply the number by 002 - this is the symbol of greed, from right to left. It gives 28572.
Turn the number backwards, divide by 6 - the smallest perfect number. The number is now 4597.
Turn the number backwards, and add 1927 - the year Fidel Castro was born. The number is now 9881.
This number, read from right to left, is 1889, or the year Adolf Hitler was born.
No further questions. QED.
Heh.... (Score:5, Funny)
By home-improvement, I hope he means replacing that NT cluster he has running everything with a more reliable system [debian.org]. I figure he's got to be sick of getting locked out of the john at 3 AM by a system crash...
"ongoing support"? (Score:4, Funny)
From the article:
Gates said he plans to retire "somewhere in my late 50s" but will probably remain associated with the company, perhaps in an advisory capacity, a role he described as "ongoing support."
So when will he be EOL-ed?
Off Topic, but... (Score:5, Funny)
So think about this: if you had the chance to liquidate most of your assets, and then finance a moon colony how could you say no? Oh I'm sure there are more humanitarian things he could do with that money, but he isn't really doing that either. But come on, Bill, a *moon colony* you could do it!
Re:Off Topic, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Off Topic, but... (Score:2)
I wonder how many people he trusts?
Re:Off Topic, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Off Topic, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
How much of that is charity on his part, and how much of that is tax-deductible (ie. "he'd simply be giving it to the IRS otherwise")? I'd suspect that the "Gates Foundation" is more of a PR gimmick than anything else. "This public broadcasting program was brounght to you by the Gates Foundation" sounds better than "This public broadcasting program was brought to you by taxpayers."
Re:Off Topic, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Gates is probably the biggest humanitarian in the world -- he founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [gatesfoundation.org], which is dedicated to fighting for health improvements in the 3rd world. The endowment of that foundation is ~$24 billion. I've also heard that Gates plans to gradually denote the remainder of his money to charity before he dies.
Regardless of what you think of Gates, accusing him of not being a good humanitarian just demonstrates that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Re:Off Topic, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Off Topic, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Driver? You have got to be kidding (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now....
Re:Driver? You have got to be kidding (Score:3, Funny)
Money + Bill Gates = sad (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah, the billions of dollars he's worth. I'd sell out too for some of that kinda loot. If someone gave me just $1 billion* I'd spend the rest of my life convincing people how cool Microsoft is.
*=obviously, I'm just kidding. My price would definately only be around the $1 million mark
10 years from now (Score:2)
microsoft's future plans (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft in the Middle Ages... (Score:5, Funny)
So.. what'd they do? Research gunpowder? Build more villagers?
after the anti-trust litigation (Score:2)
From the article:
Then there's the widely held notion among critics that Microsoft is essentially unchanged after its antitrust settlement with the federal government. Earlier this month, competitors alleged in a complaint to the European Union that the company is still using its monopoly on PC operating systems to shoulder into new markets.
...
Customers are less likely to praise the company's software than to gripe about its prices, aggressive sales tactics and stranglehold on their machines even as it changes its practices as a result of the antitrust case.
It doesn't sound like MS has changed much at all. Or am I missing something?
Microsoft 1337 cr4x0rs? (Score:2, Insightful)
I need to point my finger at someone. Is it slashdot that holds its own ads or is it the Open Source Developers Network (OSDN) that serves the ads? If I remember corectly, isn't the OSDN a subsidiary (owned) by VA Software (NASDAQ: LNUX)? This is sad, if VA calls this their business model: throwing banners at anyone, for small money. VA should have stayed in the desktop and server market, or at least enter into the notebook market with portable thin terminals, just as DEC first entered into the market with thin terminals and mainframes. Realistically, who would want a laptop-like computer, boots linuxBIOS into a Linux, with a lean XFree86 4.3, with your RADEON 9000, no harddrive; just the basics in portability; somewhat like a PDA with a large pretty screen and infinite expansion capabilities that don't limit you to embedded dirtware? Or is that what Microsoft plans to do with their "Tablet PC"? Damn I despise shitty software companies throwing their monopoly money around in markets where their product is the dead worst yet is found everywhere.
microsoft isn't slowing down (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft and Linux are taking small amounts of market share away from each other, but both are winning big at the expense of proprietary UNIX systems. Microsoft continues to look for ways to get more money from existing customers, but they back away from schemes that don't work. They also expand market share by improving products; new Windows operating systems on IA64 (and on x86-64 when it is available) and better management features mean that Windows is going upscale.
At the same time, they are expanding into new markets. Although the XBOX is losing money, it is a new platform from a new player in its market. Sony wants to push the PS3 as a PC replacement, but it won't happen. PC capabilities are increasing faster than a system that isn't updated for several years can, and the XBOX2 will continue the XBOX tradition of being technically superior to the competition.
Microsoft is expanding into other promising segments as well. Small and embedded devices (phones, VCRs, tablet PCs, cars) form a key part of the future plans.
Anyway, my point isn't to worship Microsoft. Just to point out that their business is exceptionally well run and well positioned for the future. Those are facts you would normally miss reading Slashdot.
Microsoft at Middle Age (Score:5, Funny)
Distrusted by partners? (Score:2, Interesting)
But the court findings that Microsoft violated antitrust law revealed the company's harsh side, and today it's distrusted by rivals and even partners.
Most people who've watched the story can already guess this.
Funniest line ever! (Score:5, Funny)
In competitors, agreed.
What scares me. (Score:4, Interesting)
"In a sense, despite the market climate, everything, we need to be even more committed to charging in and helping out and building products in areas where we don't compete today ... because that's what's really in the best interest of the customers," Ballmer said.
The last thing I want is for MS to be in new markets. They have a tendancy to move in to a market, play 'fairly', and manage to use Windows to kill everyone in the market.
The problem here is that they don't really make great products. They make mediocre products that 'look nice,' but nothing that's really spectacular. Shouldn't they be dedicating more of their time towards creating an OS that is not a security risk, and not in expansion to other markets?
Mmm... Seattle Times, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mmm... Seattle Times, eh? (Score:2)
Yah -- was Re:Mmm... Seattle Times, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect many other large cities with a few big companies work the same.
innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
unfortunately microsoft have always had the habit of promising much and doing nothing.
look at intel, they also dominate the CPU market, but they introduced hyperthreading to the mass market, now they are trying to make wireless lan a standard. in comparison, the latest major two innovations microsoft made (kinda) was ripping off mac os's user interface in windows95, and using the NT kernel on desktop computer (yaay, a stable os, what a great breakthrough)
atleast we get to read another interview with bill gates, and again he leaves the impression that he is simply a geek living his dream.
ah well, let's hope that in his view of the future some good news comes from microsoft, for a change, and they start using all that money and influence for something useful, instead using it to control the computer market, as we saw today as microsoft didn't bring out the opteron version of windows.
The real economic problem (Score:4, Interesting)
IMHO, this just highlites whats really going on in the US economey now days. Companies with big revenue streams like MS (and even RIAA members) are in effect forbidden from investing in the next generation technology with the highest growth rates like Linux (and p2p) because they cut into this revenue. Magnify this by millions of other companies and industries and you have a real economic problem - that will not be solved nicely. With trillions at stake, don't be supprised if all hell breaks loose.
Don't you just love 'em? (Score:5, Interesting)
The company is trying to adopt a more paternal role. It's using its vast resources to help the ailing PC industry in new ways.
So, Microsoft's press pack for lazy journalists says that MS is now a mature grown-up company. Lazy journalist writes that MS has changed for the better.
Argh. And don't you just hate MS doublespeak!:
"[..]we need to be even more committed to charging in and helping out and building products in areas where we don't compete today
Steve. Please. Drop the bullshit. You need to move into other markets to maintain your current revenue growth. It is not because "that's what's really in the best interest of the customers".
Do you think Microsofties say these things to themselves so many times that they end up believing them? It's kind of like a bizarre cult. I chatted to some friends of friends the other day who work at Microsoft. I was ruminating on the facts surronding OSS. They just flipped. They couldn't believe that I could be so stupid as to think that OSS was ever going to get anywhere. MS calls OSS people "zealots", but believe me, you wouldn't believe how fanatical and brain-washed some Microsofties are.
Rant over and out.
Re:Don't you just love 'em? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, absolutely agreed. Check this blog entry out from a Microsoft employee [netcrucible.com].
Apparently, Microsoft isn't anti-open-source now, and the FSF has a nefarious hidden agenda that somehow in over a decade and a half of consistantly sticking to its principles has yet to be revealed.
Of course, the author fails to enlighten us as to what this "agenda" might be.
Obviously you can't simply airbrush all MS employees together. Some of them are really into Linux. Many simply don't care, or don't see how it's relevant. A few are just curious (MS veep to me, "so, what apps do you guys use then?").
Then a few (probably the ones with heavy investments in MS stock) flip out over it. I think Bill Gates falls into the middle category - he simply doesn't care.
I mean does anybody else get the impression that Bill is pretty well insulated from what's going on in the company? I've read something like 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and none of them talk about anything other than his latest cool toys. He's practically never questioned hard about Linux for instance (although sometimes ballmer gets it), he just talks about how great the Tablet PC is, or how fab enormous computerised watches are.
I can't say I blame him. After all he's been through, with a passion for technology and practically unlimited funding I'd be very tempted to draw away from the business and simply focus on playing with cool stuff. But he's basically a figurehead these days, nothing more. An icon of what Microsoft once was.
Re:Don't you just love 'em? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill is confused about linux. He can't compete on price. He definitely cannot compete with the model (open source). Linux scales better than windows from small embedded computers up to big iron. He can't use his past exclusive contracts with the computer makers to stop the linux distribution channel (like he did with OS/2, Dr DOS, etc.).
I think we have already seen Bill's decision regarding linux (right or wrong). Lock the customer into using windows until Microsoft finds another revenue stream to replace it. The computer and the O/S may be a commodity, your data isn't.
Enjoy,
Zeitgeist? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for the hell of it, the other day I typed 'Windows' into Google. I got (about) 57,600,000 results.
Then I typed 'Linux'. I got (about) 53,700,000 results.
Now, one could write a whole book on how unscientific those statistics are, but it was still interesting to see a (damned near) 1:1 ratio. I had anticipated something more like 5:1
Re:Zeitgeist? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Zeitgeist? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then I typed 'Linux'. I got (about) 53,700,000 results.
Now, one could write a whole book on how unscientific those statistics are, but it was still interesting to see a (damned near) 1:1 ratio.
It's closer to 1:1 than you think. The query "windows -microsoft -nt -xp -98 -2000" gives almost exclusively links to the kind of windows that people have in their walls, and there are 4,730,000 of those, more than making up the difference you saw.
This may be unscientific for a variety of reasons, but reproducibility is not one of them
Re:Zeitgeist? (Score:3, Funny)
Try googling for Wine [google.com].
It always makes me giggle when I think of all these prim middle aged ladies sitting on the interweb to look for the latest vintage, only to come across "A free implementation of Windows on UNIX". I can see the "WTF?" thought bubbles appearing now ;)
Microsoft's contribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's greatest contribution to the computing landscape is not software. There is nothing particularly innovative or inspired about anything they have ever written. I'm not saying it's bad software, just that there's very little that they have done that wasn't preceded by other less successful counterparts.
Microsoft's great contribution is their business method. Ensure customer loyalty by ensnaring them with de-facto proprietary standards. They aren't the only ones playing this game, but they are far and away the best at it.
Microsoft's business model, not their software (or their service, for that matter), is responsible for their success. Those who believe shareholder value at any cost is the ultimate objective can be very happy. On the other hand, those who believe customer loyalty should be earned, rather than enforced by patents, copyrights, licensing and killing off the competition are mortified.
I don't know anyone who is delighted to use Microsoft products. I know a lot of people who feel they have no choice. Given the option to use a truly viable alternative, they would. I don't myself see such an alternative available today. However, I do think the writing is on the wall. And when the tide turns, it will be like a dam bursting.
Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be common sense that if you go to a meeting that's recorded digitally ... you can go back and get that information."
Um, excuse me Bill, but isn't this what Palladium and Trusted Computing(TM) are supposed to eliminate? You can no longer go back and get that information unless your DRM module allows you to. Which means that basically the author, your employer, or Microsoft, can lock you out of your own data.
Something just occurred to me regarding DRM. Once Microsoft has succeeded in entrenching DRM in the PC marketplace, what is to keep them from charging their customers royalties for every Office document they view? The technology is there - Microsoft Office could encrypt your documents, and refuse to read them after a specified period of time, unless you bought an upgrade. I can see it now - it would be sold as "Legacy Support Services - with a simple upgrade, you'll be able to view documents created 2 or more years ago!..."
With the advent of MSDOS, people began paying for what they used to get for free. How long will it be before people expect to send Microsoft money every time they view documents created with Microsoft software? How long will it be before Microsoft charges developers royalties for every copy of a program that runs on Windows? Think it can't happen? Think Palladium and Trusted Computing.
More like Bill at middle age (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore I expect to see great things for him after he retires. He is a bright guy and is doing great things with his fortune for the betterment of human kind. The Gates foundation [gatesfoundation.org] is almost ten years old, and has given away so much money to find cures for diseases, and poverty. To those that take issue with Gates Foundation giving PCs with Windows to third World Countries, would you expect him to give Macs?
My prediction: In fifty years junior high school kids will be learning about the Gate's vaccine for Malaria. (named after the benefactor for the research)
Re:More like Bill at middle age (Score:5, Funny)
After, of course, those schoolkids plunk down $25 for a 15-minute limited copy of the Gates Vaccine MS-PDF (tied to their computer at school - if they want to read it at home, it's $50 for the "extra license") on their Trusted Computing Tablet PC (c)
Out of Touch with Business. (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
"...It will be common sense that you can correspond with your doctor and ask him questions electronically. It will be common sense that if you go to a meeting that's recorded digitally
It is not common sense. My doctor does not correspond electronically for two reasons. He is busy and he gains no revenue from it. Doctor's do not sit in their office waiting for someone to show up.(Try to see your doctor the same day you call). As for recording digitally that again is economically available today, but it fails to meet a wide business need. Instead, I call up Jane and ask "Was that two foobars or three you wanted?" I don't go to the archives and pull the video. Perhaps it is just his lawyers talking, in which case the video will expire in 30 days and be self destructive.
as for
If it works as planned, an airline would be able to update a passenger's on-line calendar if a flight were delayed, while notifying the passenger of the change with an e-mail and a phone message. One goal is to create a standard format so that data could be read by whatever device the passenger uses.
Again, a solution looking for a problem. Since a flight is not legally "late" until it does not push off, do you really expect an airline to send you an email in the morning?
As for a standard message format, they could have that today. They selected to remain proprietary, no one is holding a gun to their head. Let's see support for a universal open document standard and we would all be happy.(Well, except MS.)
"In addition to creating new software to entice people to buy more powerful computers, Microsoft is designing new types of computers, encouraging PC makers to build them."
Yes, the do this and not for the business' that is using it. Who wanted to go to an OS who's base requirements were four or five times the previous release? Hardware makers. Do I like having a 2.0ghz chip and a gig of memory for compiles? You bet. Does business appreciate needing to update an entire administration pool to run W2k and XP? Not even a little.
and finally, the "lost leader" thrown in to later claim "everyone knew it was coming:"
One key feature is expected to be a new file-storage system for better organizing things stored on a Windows-based PC. It could finally make it easy for people to search and find all sorts of files -- contacts, printers, documents, programs, photos -- with a single search tool.
Sadly, almost no one in the mainstream recognizes this for what it is. A shutout of other devices, services and software. I predict this is going to be a 100% legally encased product that will prevent or impede anything from interacting that is not MS. Anyone (i.e. SAMBA) trying to engineer a solution can look to DCMA for guidence. Nothing more complicated than that.
First four paragraphs (Score:3, Insightful)
The 47-year-old Microsoft chairman has a good idea about when he'll be retiring, he enjoys driving his daughter to school, and he has a home-improvement project he wants to get to one of these days.
But first he has a few things to get done at the office, such as build Microsoft's software platform for the next era of computing and reinvigorate the sluggish computer industry along the way.
With the enthusiasm of a science student working on a killer project, Gates talks excitedly about putting together software he thinks may change the world."
Four paragraphs and not a mention of what the article has to do with. This is why most Slashdot readers don't read the articles. What a waste of time.
wonder if MS is planning a non-HFS? (Score:3, Interesting)
a new version of Windows code-named Longhorn. One key feature is expected to be a new file-storage system for better organizing things stored on a Windows-based PC. It could finally make it easy for people to search and find all sorts of files -- contacts, printers, documents, programs, photos -- with a single search tool.
wonder if it's anything like non-HFS systems, like this [slashdot.org]?
ARROGANCE! (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't believe it. Ok, well, actually I can. How much sheer arrogance does it take for Gates to claim that the economy will recover when, and only when, Microsoft "innovations" make it possible?
This is the kind of thing that makes me want to just reach through the screen and choke the living sh*t out of Gates. He's a megalomaniac evil businessman posing as a lovable geek. And people buy it.
What they really mean (Score:3, Funny)
I take it they mean it will crash once a day...
Middle Age huh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, It in many ways seems that they may have reached a peak and are falling from it. The 2000 products I think were the pinnacle in the professional world. Even though XP has a 'professional' edition, businesses seem to not really care about it.
Business people aren't excited about it if for no other reason than there being no 'XP Server'. While this has no technical merit, suits like to see consistancy, and feel that the best match for '2000 Servers' are '2000 Workstations', even if not always true. Plus, the new default look doesn't give an impression of 'professional', and the arrangement of the new start menu and desktop configuration can annoy them to no end. Yes all these things can be changed, but in first impressions, it really makes suits doubt the platform.
For IT people, they see that XP added shiny round windows and.... ummm..... that's just about it. They know it is an incremental update with few non-cosmetic feature enhancements. They know that while it offers little to no practical benefit, it at the same time will forever be slightly less tested and proven than Windows 2000 with all their respective updates. Additionally, though pretty efficient, the new graphics have some impact on performance, and at times the impact can be drastic if your video card isn't perfect.
Legal departments that bother to look at MS EULAs know to be scared more and more with every revision. MS is really trying to push their ground more and more, and they really haven't been giving back anything.
XP was a great thing to home users, finally going to the 2000 core for that segment. I would say XP could be the peak for the home segment, but I know full well that the home segment will buy up pretty, shiny, useless improvements endlessly. I think MS knows that too and is moving more and more into that segment (XBox, Tablets, Media Center..)
Windows 2000 offered a great deal of improvement over NT4 (mainly AD, but other stuff too). Windows XP offers next to nothing. Looking at the upcoming Windows 2003 release, there isn't that much to be excited about. Their revolutionary filesystem is the *only* feature I see that anyone cares much about, and I'm not sure how the market will ultimately view the feature.
Windows and Linux are separating (Score:3, Interesting)
But things are changing on the Windows side. Microsoft is poised to deprecate the entire Win32 API in favor of
GenX software companies: where are they? (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like changes have happened already.. (Score:3, Funny)
Bill Gates on lack of response towards Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that Bill Gates doesn't care about linux, he just doesn't know how to compete with it. If you read his biography you will find he is one of the most competitive people alive. He loves to win, sometimes at any cost. It's just a challenge to him.
Bill is confused about linux. He can't compete on price. He definitely cannot compete with the model (open source). Linux scales better than windows from small embedded computers up to the big iron. He can't use his past exclusive contracts with the computer makers to stop the linux distribution channel (like he did with OS/2, Dr DOS, GEOS, etc.). KDE/GNOME/OpenOffice will soon be a transparent replacement for Explorer and MS Office.
I think we have already seen Bill's decision regarding linux (right or wrong). Lock the customer into using windows until Microsoft finds another revenue stream to replace it. Passport,
Your computer and the O/S may be a commodity, your data isn't. Your pictures, spreadsheets, logs, documents, Music, etc. needs to belong to Microsoft and they know this.
Enjoy.
Mac OS X will have limited impact (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mac OS X? (Score:5, Informative)
"Mac OS X is a single OS, as opposed to a set of OSes that may or may not work together."
OS X is no more a single OS than Linux is a single OS. Linux interoperates just fine with other Linux machines. Don't confuse the operating system with the applications.
"Also, OS X also has the backing of a long established company that will probably be around in the foreseeable future."
And Linux has IBM. At least they're not constantly going out of business
"OS X is also a BSD, which is a much better OS than Linux. "
Mod -1 Flamebait. BSD is not a better OS than Linux, nor is Linux better than BSD. Make your arguments based on credible facts, not personal opinion.
"Lastly, Apple is adopting a less proprietary model and much of the operating system is open source, so many of the benefits of a completely open source OS are there too."
A less proprietary model than Linux, where ALL of the OS is open source? I doubt that.
I like and use OS X, but it's not competition for Linux. It's a good OS, and has it's places, but it's no threat to Linux or MS.
All your points are correct exept the last one. (Score:3)
Linux is an excellent server platform but until Linux is as intuitive and slick as OS X, I will buy $3000 laptops running OS X.
Productivity relates to how much work you get done on each system. Linux requires a significant amount of work to be a decent desktop machine. OS X requires a default install to be the best desktop machine. If Apple does a better job of getting all their server admin tools gui based for OS X server (and Oracle gets out of RC2) I'll be purchasing a XServe to compare to my Linux and Solaris setups.
Oh and saying "I like and use OS X, but it's not competition for Linux. It's a good OS, and has it's places, but it's no threat to Linux or MS." is completely off base. There are actually more people switching from Unix (like myself) based OSes to OS X than Windows users.
Re:Mac OS X? (Score:3, Informative)
Directory layout and file placement should generally be POSIX compliant, but The details of init's processes and file layout are distro dependant, though. RedHat 7.3 will be the same with every install of RedHat 7.3. Mac OS X is a BSD distro. BSD ditros can vary as widely Linux, so it's really not fair to say Mac OS X is any more consolidated than any other distro.
Re:Mac OS X? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that in the far future, a few people will look back and say "Well, it's a crying shame that Linux won, really MacOS was much better" in much the same way that people think of the video system wars of a decade or so ago.
In reality of course, they'll be wrong. In much the same way that when people remember VHS vs Betamax all they tend to think of was that Betamax tapes had higher quality pictures, but forget the smaller capacity/higher prices/sony control.
And so really, although I'm sure there are people out there who kind of regret the dominance of VHS, when you get down and argue the points through you tend to realise that a lot of what people remember about Betamax is rose-tinted. They think of only the good points, and forget why it really died.
I mean, when I read the points you make above, it's just like reading a VHS vs Betamax argument. There's the whole will-the-free-market-work thing going, there's the whole its-backed-by-a-megacorp thing and then there's a baseless assertion about the relative "goodness" of the kernels. I mean, maybe FreeBSD has a better VM system or something, I don't really know, and I don't care either. It's like video quality - 99.9% of people can't tell, don't know and wouldn't care even if they did.
Finally I'd point out that "less proprietary" isn't good enough: it's still proprietary, and that's a bad thing. It also condemns them to a minority marketshare for ever, something I'm sure they are aware of, but they're doing OK selling to a niche so that doesn't really matter.
Re:Mac OS X? (Score:3, Funny)
silly poster, don't you know BSD is dying?
Re:Mac OS X? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. SAMBA - important to allow internetworking with Windows computers. Major driving forces - Linux and BSD
2. XFree86 - Apple's implementation of X11 is based on XFree86. Driven by Linux and BSD.
3. GCC - Apple's main compiler based on the work of GNU project. Driven by Linux and BSD.
4. Safari - Based on the work of the KDE team. Drievn by Linux.
4. Security initiatives - I'm not sure what Apple's main implementations are but OpenSSH's availability is important. Driven by OpenBSD.
Apple did innovate with Quartz and some other technology on top of BSD but the fact is they are dependent on technology driven by Linux and BSD for at least the past 10 years. I give Linux more credit here because of it's industry support by companies such as IBM, HP, and Intel who will continue to drive interopability. (And Apple will benefit from that effort).
Re:Billy G. Not to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
But the entire discussion is tedious and vapid. Wealth comes from careful and lucky negotiation of the (male) networks that thread our business world. Get born into the right family, with the right brain, and at the right time, and you stand a good chance of being rich. Choose the wrong parents, genes, and place and time, and you will dish out hamburgers.
Talking about it just mixes jealousy and ignorance. History shows that wealth never stays in one place for very long. Inequality of wealth creates the condititions for its own redistribution.
With Microsoft, its very stranglehold on PC operating systems has been a major stimulus behind the development of what will become the de-facto standard operating system, being Linux of course. Without Microsoft as the enemy, would so many people really have focussed on one single reliable alternative? It certainly did not happen before.
So, sit back, and watch history in action. We are approaching a period in which the Linux OS is becoming a standard commodity product, and in which all businesses that rely on control over one or other OS will die. If Microsoft realize this within two or three years and embrace Linux fully, they will survive. If they continue to rely on Windows, they will fail.