What idiot modded this troll? It was right on point.

Windows and Office are cash cows, yes, but other than Ballmer's incompetence they're the biggest part of the problem-- everyone at Microsoft is afraid of doing something that might threaten Windows or Office. That's why Microsoft spent years trying to stuff bloated desktop Windows into tablets and phones-- and why they were made to like complete asses by Apple.

And XBox? Pfft. They bought their way into the video game market, plain and simple. IIRC they haven't yet reached the break-even point because of the billions they pissed away at the start. XBox is the last time you'll ever see them be able to pull that move, too. No more showing up late with a mediocre product and coming out on top only because they can outspend their competitors.

And Sharepoint is just another product designed to increase corporate IT inertia and maintain Windows' dominance on enterprise desktops.

~Philly

> Selecting the device has not been a standard operation for universal remotes for over 15-20 years.

Every remote I've ever owned that was capable of controlling more than one device required you to first press the button for the device you want to control, and then press the button(s) to issue commands to that device.

The TV in my basement dates to 1994, and that's how its remote works. So did that of the since-replaced TV in my master bedroom that was bought on the same day. I've got another universal remote on the desk beside me right now that works the same way and dates to about 1997 or so.

So, yes, IME selecting the device has been pretty standard for almost 20 years. I don't know why dude had to be so insulting about it, but he is technically correct. And we all know that's the best kind of correct.

~Philly

It was innovative, and while the first one was not great, Apple kept at it. The Newton 2000 and 2100 were great machines.

I'm sorry, where in my post did I say anything about Linux? Oh, that's right, nowhere-- because I wasn't fucking talking about Linux.

Microsoft set computing progress back by decades because they destroyed many fledgling companies that developed or were developing an advanced product or technology that was perceived as a possible threat to the Windows monopoly. I'll let your apparent ignorance of this slide, since based on your childish name calling you must not have been born when it was going on.

Oh, and Mr. Anonymous Coward says I'm the cowardly one. Classic!

~Philly

The Gates Foundation exists solely to whitewash his reputation for the history books. Gates is nothing more than a latter-day robber-baron. The ruthless tactics he used to line his pockets and squelch any perceived threat to Windows set computing progress back decades.

It sickens me how everyone seems to conveniently forget that, and lines up to kiss his ass because he decided to take the ill-gotten gains amassed via twenty years of unscrupulous business practices and buy respectability for himself.

~Philly

It didn't work out well then because the Mac was Apple's primary source of revenue. Not so anymore.

Specifically, what happened back then was that the cloners were supposed to take the low end of the market that Apple didn't want. Instead, at least one of them went balls-to-the-wall and made some machines that were faster than Apple's fastest. They began to hit Apple right in the bottom line, which is why almost immediately upon his return Jobs used a contract loophole to kill the clone program.

Personally, I would love to see Apple open up for at least some things. I can understand to a degree that they don't want consumers running OS X on non-Apple hardware, but since they don't sell enterprise-class servers anymore I think they should officially allow, certify, and fully support installation and virtualization of OS X Server on at least a limited selection of non-Apple hardware.

Yup. I post about Go frequently in relevant discussions on here, because nobody remembers them. Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics set tablet computing back twenty years, and I've been gleefully enjoying watching their ham-handed attempts to catch up to Apple since the first iPad. It seems that the universe is finally meting out some measure of karmic justice.

The whole story was detailed in former Go CEO Jerry Kaplan's book, Startup, and in a chapter of former Microsoftie Marlin Eller's book, Barbarians Led by Bill Gates. The latter plainly states that the only reason Pen Windows was brought into existence was to kill Go's product, which was viewed as a threat to Windows.

Really makes you wonder what other superior competing products and technologies Microsoft successfully killed back then, that we don't know about.

~Philly

I desperately wanted one when they came out because of the promise of e-books, but the greed of the publishers has ruined that. When the electronic version of the book barely costs any less than the physical book, I'll take the physical version because I get something tangible for negligible additional cost. I don't have such a need for instant gratification that I can't wait a day or two for Amazon to get it to me.

None of these media cartels seems to realize that the point of electronic distribution is to bring the price down for the consumer so publishers can make it up in sales volume-- not so they can keep the price nearly the same as for the physical product and use the savings in production/distribution costs to pad their profits.

One of the things that pisses me off the most about these fuckers is that their answer to the "Are you selling this to me or licensing this to me?" question always seems to be whichever one means they get paid again (or in this case, whichever one means they get to not pay someone else).

Your CD got scratched? Oooh, sorry, we sold you that music. Buy another copy.

You want to resell that legal MP3? Nope, that's a nontransferable license, no can do. (IIRC, this is currently being battled out in the courts.)

You think we owe you more in royalties? Nah, we sold those songs instead of licensing them. You mad, bro?

The sooner these dinosaurs get done in by their own greed, the better.

~Philly

Since when have IT pros made policy based on user desires?

Since CxOs (who are "users") started walking into their IT departments, holding up their shiny new iDevices and declaring, "Thou shalt make this work on the corporate network."

~Philly

"Apple needs to build a LDAP compliant network Management server that plugs into AD network and just blend in, and manages all the iDevices for Enterprise. It would do even better if said server would also allow AD like policies on managed Macs."

Uh, except for the iDevices for Enterprise bit (which I'm not entirely sure about), they already have-- it's called Mac OS X Server. It will replicate AD info for authentication purposes and use separate Open Directory info for management of the Macs on the network. This technique is generally known as the "golden triangle."

You could also use a product called Centrify DirectControl, which as I understand it basically translates AD group policies and applies them to non-Windows systems. I have not used this myself, but it's something that may be worth a look if someone reading this has a need.

~Philly

Agreed. Apple is being unfairly singled out here. Damn near every major electronics/computer maker's products roll out of many of those very same factories... something the Apple-hater crowd is usually very quick to point out in an attempt to refute the "Apple uses better components" or "Apple products have better build quality" arguments made by Apple fanboys.

~Philly

Yes, what a silly people we Americans are, designing our combat aircraft based on their purposes in the field.

Designing a plane around a gun that was built to devastate Soviet tanks? Well that was just crazy!

And designing a plane to be nearly invisible to radar, so it can destroy targets before the enemy even knows it's in their airspace? What kind of cockamamie Uncle Sam jibba-jabba is that???

Doublestack, Novell, IBM, Apple, Netscape, AOL, DEC, all were companies that were turned on in an instant and had to deal with a Microsoft's severely bipolar behavior.

Don't forget Go Corp, who'd likely have given us viable tablet computing 20 years ago if they hadn't insisted on using their own OS instead of Windows. Microsoft destroyed them with extreme prejudice for it.

Also, I think you meant Stac Electronics, not Doublestack. A Doublestack is a burger at Wendy's, and it appears you were posting at lunchtime. Freudian slip, perhaps?

~Philly

I had a Moto SLVR that was kind of bitchy like that. I put up with it for about 6 months, until I found a good deal on an unlocked Sony-Ericsson K550i on eBay. That phone lasted me a year and a half, until I gave in and got an iPhone.

"Appears to be working, but isn't" is about the worst way a phone can act up on you. I had that happen with multiple WinMo based HTC phones over the years. Definitely not fun when your job includes on-call duty. After the first time I got burned while on-call I had them direct that stuff to my personal cell and not my company-issued WinMo piece of shit.