Microsoft: 2003 and Beyond 402
A reader writes: " Automation Access has a long editorial on the future of Microsoft, based on trends which are already in full motion. None of this is new or surprising, but seeing it all together in one article is well worthwhile."
Finally (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Finally (and 5 is....) (Score:5, Funny)
5. Goto 4
Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)
while ECONOMY_GOOD_FLAG
{
do_Bitches();
smoke_Blunts();
spend_Gs();
}
flee_country(*ill_gotten_gains);
Prediction (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft will continue to implement proprietary standards. The problem is that many of them don't suck anymore. Since they have so much cash, they are quick to introduce technology first (yeah.... I know there are several examples that point to the opposite...).
Soon, when your car needs an oil change, it'll tell your DirectCar equipped device which will cross-reference your location with the nearest providers. You'll click on the low bidder and the on-board DirectNavigation device will tell you how to get there.
It'll be cheap, convenient... and Microsoft will have a piece of the transaction...
The hands tighten!
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Funny)
...proprietary standards?
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
Re:Prediction (Score:2, Funny)
Proprietary:
a business secretly owned by and run as a cover for an intelligence organization
Standard:
a conspicuous object (as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle or to serve as an emblem
All is revealed! Microsoft is a cover for an anti-terrorist agency whos dominance of world computers will be used to foil terrorists everywhere since... hmm... it's on the terrorists phones and computers it'll... erm... crash more often, preventing them from being effective...
Windows update is the tool!
Re:Prediction (Score:3, Interesting)
Bah... Slashdot needs an edit feature to bog it down some more. I caught that as I hit the submit button... That should read, "proprietary solutions".
In any event, but if you stare at it long enough, they really are proprietary standards... Windows, Word, etc... These have all become industry "standards", for the most part.
But thanks again for pointing out the mistakes that I often make in the haste required to get the "FIT" (First Intelligent Post).
Re:Prediction (Score:2, Funny)
Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but did you mean FIP?
You left out... (Score:2)
"God damn you, every one!" --Tiny Tim, if he were still alive.
Re:Prediction (Score:4, Interesting)
My question with all of this is how is it going to make my life better by having Direct(whatever) running my automobile, or having a browser in my freezer at home? Simply put, I do not want those features/bugs in every aspect of my life with the prospects of occupying more time. Several years ago when I was integrating computers more into my work, they started sucking up incredible amounts of time for administration purposes (web sites, databases, dealing with bugs and crashes) and it was actually taking up time that could have been better spent on other things. This is why I went with OS X, by the way as it requires much less hand holding than Windows and has much better security.
At any rate, I do not want to have to go through the same thing with my automobile, home appliances, or whatever. My time is valuable enough without having to troubleshoot other systems in addition to work. Yes, true embedded systems are easier to use, but Microsoft has not proven themselves capable of producing a reliable embedded system as evidenced by that lousy interface and functionality of the CE driven system on the BMW 7 series. If BMW continues along that path, they will loose me as a customer forever.
Re:Prediction (Score:4, Insightful)
1) It will make your life worse. For example, I would never go to the lowest bidder for something as important as an oil change! Who knows what kind of oil filter they use, or even if they put in the right amount of oil. Then the sleazebags try to sell new winshield wipers, breather elements, transmission fluid, etc. and leave fingerprints on the hood and fenders. Good old-fashioned word of mouth is still the only reliable way to find mechanics, contractors, etc.
2) Microsoft's habit of producing products of unbounded complexity has no business being in any of my household appliances, or my car (or my PC, for that matter).
I think the recent drive to automate and integrate everything will end when the public realizes that simplicity in most things is a virtue not a limitation, and computers make useful tools and that's about it.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft will fall and fall hard. Microsoft is already saying that they're gonna break compatility with Longhorn and
I've been saying this for the last 5 years or so. You watch. It *will* happen.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Symantec's Act! and Intuit's QuickBooks are Microsoft's ace in the hole. Until file compatible equivalents are developed, Linux will have a hard time capturing the small business desktop in the U.S.. Both companies are closely tied to Microsoft, so QuickBooks won't be ported until it's too late to save Intuit from Microsoft Great Plains.
What we need is for a group of businesses to pool some funds and create an Open Source project to entirely replace the need for Quickbooks and other expensive off-the-shelf accounting and business management software. Why should they do this? Out fo the goodness of their hearts? No!! Because it'll be cheaper for them in the long run.
The author of the article almost gets it, but not quite:
Paradoxically, a strong open source alternative is the best hope for a revived commercial software industry. Much software needed by businesses is simply of no interest to open source developers. As Linux becomes a mainstream business operating system, the market for commercial software running on Linux expands.
When he states that business software is of no interest to OSS developers, he is making the assumption that all OSS developers work without pay and only a hobby. Geeks, listen up! The business world needs Open Source business apps to make free operating systems like Linux and BSD useful to them. Commercial software running on Linux is not the answer--not for them, not for the development community at large. We need to educate businesses that collaboration and pooling of resources is more efficient at meeting needs than buying proprietary software. Open Source is not just about getting a free lunch--it's about getting your needs met cheaply and effectively. Just as the Apache Group has functioned as a consortium and pool of resources for people who need web server software, we need equivalent projects for all major business management and accounting software.
There are precisely 2 things keeping the Evil Empire from falling: 1.) lack of a sufficient replacement for MS-Office 2.) lack of commodity business software for alternative platforms
IBM#2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone else think... (Score:5, Funny)
Ballmer?
Re:IBM#2 (Score:2)
Actually, in my company, it was "Beware the danicing Dinosaur"
Re:IBM#2 (Score:3, Funny)
Homer: So?
Lisa: "Beware the Ides of March."
Homer: No!
Lisa: Dad, I know you think you're happy now, but it's not going to last forever.
Homer: Everything lasts forever.
Re:IBM#2 (Score:3, Informative)
Related article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Related article (Score:4, Insightful)
Database file system (Score:5, Insightful)
The most important feature of Longhorn is replacement of the familiar DOS/Windows filesystem with an object database (W0). You will no longer copy files to a floppy or CD-ROM or attach them to an email, because there will be no files. Database records will be copied from one database to another, probably through a
Uh huh. DB based file system != files will be stored on a server (microsoft or otherwise).
So much for credibility.
Re:Database file system (Score:3, Insightful)
there will be no files
Complete, utter bullshit. What a waste of my time reading that article. Thanks a bunch,
Re:Database file system (Score:3, Funny)
So if everything is replaced with database calls, /R C:/*.*
DELTREE
or
rm -rf /
Will be replaced by the much simpler
DELETE FROM FILESYSTEM
No need for extra arguments when you desire 100% compression.
Re:Database file system (Score:2)
If not, how would the kernel read the config files etc?
If the system *can* boot up, which I'm pretty sure it can, it means it *can* store files locally.
Filter Schmilter... Don't try to adapt reality to your personal ideas of how evil Moft is.
Re:Database file system (Score:5, Insightful)
Many programs you already run on stand alone machines already work on this client/server model.
The architecture is designed to *allow* operation over the network with aspects of the program distributed across multiple machines, but does not *require* it.
I don't think there's any question though that MS would find it desirable that machines need be net connected to be allowed to boot. The benefits are fairly obvious and thus, if the clients prove willing, it seems more than likely that is what will come to pass.
KFG
Re:Database file system (Score:2)
Dream on. The file system has nothing to do with *forcing* users to pass flies through a
Article needs more bold underlines (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
The future [mslinux.org] of Microsoft.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
"Jesus Christ, who are these people?"
-- Bill Gates
And
"They want me to be a whore!"
-- Linus Torvalds.
Damn (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's true, sounds like a big shot in the foot for MS. With many people still on 98/2000, XP has yet to saturate every cubicle around. Now by 2005 everyone will be expected to drop everything and get a new stuff? They must have some plan to support "legacy" software.
Re:Damn (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy who wrote this is trying to be smart and failing - he knows about hating Microsoft, and he knows a bit about technology, and paranoia too. But he doesn't know about business, and his argument that Longhorn will not be backwards compatible puts the rest of the article into doubt - he fumbles the bit about licensing and totally drops the ball when he says that you store your files on Microsoft's servers.
Take the entire thing with a pinch of salt. M$ may be bastards when it comes to business practice, but they aren't bastards in the eyes of the average end-user, merely annoying.
Re:Damn (Score:5, Informative)
"The most important feature of Longhorn is replacement of the familiar DOS/Windows filesystem with an object database (W0). You will no longer copy files to a floppy or CD-ROM or attach them to an email, because there will be no files. Database records will be copied from one database to another, probably through a
Yeah, no more files. Everyone will need to pay to use MS's servers to store data. Uh-huh.
For the record, a DB based filesystem is really just using a relational DB to find stuff faster, rather than a FAT or jumping inodes.
The guy who wrote this doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Re:Damn (Score:3, Informative)
It's basically merging Office's FindFast feature (which is MSJET based?, IIRC) into the OS.
Now when I search for "PORNO*.MPG" it'll be querying a DB and getting my results instantly, rather than walking the entire directory structure. And when you have a world of 120 gig hard drives with thousands of subdirs, this is a really necessary feature.
Re:Damn (Score:2, Informative)
you are writing "something about nature" what happens in a "trip to Appalachi" you don't have to invent a name "tripappalachi.doc", you can simply save it with attributes "Nature" and "Trips".
You cannot do it in Filesystem: you have to figure out one directory and invent a name. For
some people inventing names is a pain in the #$s
Re:Damn (Score:4, Insightful)
> Now when I search for "PORNO*.MPG" it'll be querying a DB and getting my results instantly, rather than walking the entire directory structure. And when you have a world of 120 gig hard drives with thousands of subdirs, this is a really necessary feature.
That's a bug, not a feature!
Do you really want anyone to walk up to your machine and type "pr0n" and find your stash?
What's so wrong with remembering that your stash is in E:/APPS/MISC/FOO/BAR/goat? :)
More to the point, I can see some uses for a database type system with metadata (e.g. MP3z with specific ID3 attributes), but I don't see a need for it to replace the filesystem altogether. In the MP3 example, why not just scan the 120G drive and index the ID3 data, modifying the database as files are moved in/out of the /MP3 subtree?
The reason end users don't know where their files are stored is because the defaults of most products (especially MS-Office) are set up not to show them things like path names. You don't know if it's storing it in the OS's default place C:/Somethingorother/Documents and Settings/User Name, the application directory C:/Another/Long/Path Name, or the place the luser last saved something.
Crappy UI design is what leads users to scatter files all over the frickin' drive. Fix the crappy UI, and you don't need a database to replace the filesystem.
Re:Damn (Score:2)
It's not. Don't worry, this guy seems to be a jackass...
I shuddered when he said that the new file system will be impleneted via a database will be incompatible with current "DOS/Windows" filesystems.
Palladium (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another reason why Microsoft should be stopped as quick as possible.
Re:Palladium (Score:2)
However, it requires chipset support to get Palladium working. I suspect that even after LaGrande/Palladium gets going, there will be chipsets that ignore the "features" that we Stuckists are so worked up about.
And without the chipset support, that "evil circuitry" could actually do some cool stuff, like offload crypto overhead to the crypto co-processor. Imagine effortless SSH and SSH tunneling! That's a possibility.
However, don't think that using chips from someone other than Intel will save you from the advance of Palladium. Or "All your trusted base are belong to us" or whatever it's called now. All the chip manufacturers have signed off on it. Soylent Green is People. Resistance is futile. That pod next to your bed...never mind that...
Is this from a supermarket tabloid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bitter? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're over 40, the technology employment picture becomes really grim. You have abilities far beyond a 28 year old's, but he's the one that's going to get hired. For over 40s, there are many opportunities in consulting, especially in small and medium business, but that takes social skills and above all, selling skills, exactly what many chose technical careers to avoid.
Ummm and with that beard ? A strange rant in the middle of the article.
Re:Bitter? (Score:3, Informative)
Nice start (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm often thought that, if the OSS developers really wants to help OSS take off, they should create a simple, well designed web site with the facts for and against, and perhaps some case studies. Something that would be have a compelling argument for PHBs.
It seems that this guy has put together lots of good facts, but it fails hugely in one respect. It is not business-like. Someone needs to go though this and remove emotion and long-windedness and highlight the best facts.
Consider this sentence:
Denial has always been Microsoft's "remedy of choice", blaming "dumb users", "criminal hackers", and "poor administration" for security problems. Apparently Microsoft itself employs plenty of dumb users and poor administrators, because they've had to disconnect their internal systems for major cleanups with every big worm attack, and they got slammed pretty hard by the Slammer worm in JAN 2003
Extract the fact:
Jan 2003, Microsoft disconnected their own internal network because they because they became infected by the Slammer worm.
Now, which of these two sentences do you think would have the most influence on business decision makers (or PHBs if you prefer)?
Re:Nice start (Score:2, Insightful)
Intentional Vulnerability - Microsoft demands access to your computers and network over the Internet, without your consent and without your knowledge (it's in the license agreement for Windows XP and Windows 2000 SP3). To expect a computer system outfitted with these "features" to be in any way secure is purest fantasy.
Deliberate "Back Doors" - It is strongly suspected that Microsoft has provided government agencies with keys and codes allowing secret entry into Windows systems. This is a major reason why China and the German Bundeswehr are dumping Windows. Further, Microsoft developers have hidden whole games within the code of Microsoft Office. It's absurd to think they haven't put in a few convenient entry points. Many think the sudden surrender of the Bush Department of Justice to Microsoft, after the antitrust case was decisively won and upheld on appeal, was in return for Microsoft inserting access points into Windows - access points that are probably redundant, but asked for as a result of the now famous lack of communication among U.S. security agencies.
Not only are these wild claims that he attemps to pass as fact but they are pure speculation on his part not even supported by his references. There are countless examples throughout this document where massive bias is attempted to pass as fact, some of which have been noted in other posts here. One only needs to look at his choice of references to see what his bias lies, nothing really pro microsoft listed..
My point is simple, we can do a lot better as a community. We don't have to sink to trying to convince people with wild claims that even a layperson can see right through. Our attempt to show material ultimately demonstrates who we are and if we push crap we look like crap. If we push quality material then we look good.
Re:Nice start (Score:2)
I expect that there is a simple reason why MS doesn't make their "Fight Linux" web site external. It is because then the OSS community would come up with a rebuttal. Do you think that the information Microsoft gives to its sales people is unbiased, truthful? Think about it - it is much better to have a sales person that really believes MS solutions are better than one who knows the facts but can argue the case for MS solutions. So MS are going to tell their sales people, for instance, "Linux has more security holes than Linux, look at these facts!", and they'll miss out those facts that do not support their argument.
I work with a lot of marketeers, and I know that for complex arguments, it is possible to put together convincing, fact-based arguments whatever point you want to get across. Especially if your target is not well informed, which is normally the case in the IT world.
M$ serious issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Continuing Conquest of Computing (Score:2, Funny)
Once we have the resources of trademark and patent offices around the globe, we will begin our program to acquire patents and trademarks for existing so-called "Open Source" properties, upon which we will then vigorously enforce our new license fee structure.
Finally, we plan to obtain ownership rights to the chemicals Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine, and to impose licensing fees on anyone who replicates these chemicals in any order.
By obtaining these assets, we shall create a better, more user-friendly world, in which everything will be more Windows-compatible - and much, much more gooey.
Waht sayeth the Mutant Gods (Score:2)
weirder DRM
crackhead sized lust for hardware requirements
more holes
quirky backwards compatibility
YADM (yet another driver model)
The end of Win9 code (really we mean it this time)
Incedibly active Desktop - it will purr if stroke the keyboard right
Cancerous integration with MSN
Diverge from all standards except the ones they can't reverse mutate
Bigger nanny filters
Diverge from all other media players/tools
CDRW/DVD-recorder 'certification'
Interesting quote... (Score:2)
A principle factor is that America's business leaders simply don't want to think about complex technology issues - they want to think about golf. Microsoft promises them that, and being a large, and hugely successful corporation, they have high credibility with top business executives.
If this is true, the future of open source is dark, indeed... =(
Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM on the plantation (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole value of the information age comes from the uninhibited free flow of information. Copyrights are very quickly becoming unenforcable, which is why Microsoft and Hollywood are doomed. But unfortunately, while p2p and Linux will have all the growth at first, MS and Hollywood will have all the revenue. There is no way that this will be a nice transition, with trillions at stake watch out for all hell to break loose.
Re:DRM on the plantation (Score:2)
You must be from the South. Everybody else knows and understands that they did not, in fact, succeed.
Or perhaps you meant "seceded"? :-)
Caveat: I'm from the South. This is not a 'dumb redneck' insult.
MS (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you were planning to spend more than £150,000 in one go would you like:
- Someone from Microsoft to spend 2 hours at your company to offer advice
- A Microsoft partner to spend 2 hours at your company to offer advice"
For £150,000 I'd want Bill Gates to spend 2 hours here making coffee and preparing sandwiches!
Interestingly, one of the questions was "Will you consider using Open Office in the next 12 months?"
At £300+ a go for MS Office I'd say YES.
Anybody working on ... (Score:2)
Is Longhorn backup solely going to be the province of MS?
An Excellent Article! (Score:2)
I can put up with a lot, but Palladium will be the 20 ton girder that broke the camel's back in this case.
As soon as software comes out that requires Palladium, I'm out of Microsoft software permanently.
I've tinkered with Linux but never really used it to a large degree, however I will not have outside companies dictating what I can and can't do on my own machine.
Any corporate executives who think they can cram this kind of crap down people's throats better think again.
Better start singing: (Score:5, Funny)
I moved sixteen Gigs and what do I get?
Another day older and deeper in debt!
Honey don't you call me, 'cause I can't come:
I owe my soul to the company store. [microsoft.com]
They forgot to add "nyah nyah nyah-nyah nyah..." (Score:2)
Trying this kind of stunt would just launch another anti-trust action from Square One, which I highly doubt Microsoft would want. One of the main reasons that Microsoft is floating the idea of paying a dividend is that they've put the specter of antitrust liability behind them.
MS and hardware platforms / anti-MS bias (Score:5, Insightful)
- Compared to the Apple Macintosh, Windows had to support much more and diverse hardware, so it's clearly in MS' interest to limit the possibilities and improve quality control on the drivers it does support - hence the whole "driver signing" initiative. In my subjective view, this has largely been successful - Windows XP is more reliable than its predecessors, which is a start.
- As noted, this has focused the "white box" market and lowered prices. Intel and AMD's pricing and business are intimately tied in with MS', tothe point that neither will consider making a true Windows-incompatible CPU.
- But what about other hardware alternatives? I mean, there have been PowerPC reference designs for years, but the withdrawal of MacOS privileges by Apple seems to have scuppered that market totally - otherwise there would be far more non-Wintel boxes out there, ripe for MacOS or Linux (or both).
My main point is this: at the moment, any real innovation in hardware design seems to have a MS stamp on it, even if the actual work is done by e.g. Inventec on behalf of HP. The Tablet PC is a perfect example: the market and technology have been around for years, but only the MS-backed group has actually produced a useful mass-market design. The HP/Compaq in particular is getting raves from the real-world usability angle. Never mind a Transmeta-based system might do the job even better and be Linux-compatible - why was MS allowed to be first to (mass) market?Finally: the anti-MS bias in the article is obviously not a problem to Slashdot readers, but it does raise questions about the author's objectivity. Still: if, like me, your livelihood is bound up with Microsoft's, I'd start looking for an "out" in the next couple of years. (I think I'll break out my guitar and join a band again.)
I love /. readers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Classify anyone with an opinion as a moron because they have the nerve to express it. Especially if it has to do with Microsoft.
I thought there was some interesting insights in the article. The larger the corporation, the more likely they are to outsource jobs to India, Poland, etc. Palladium is really a Digital Rights Management initiative (we all knew that), but primarily for Microsoft software and content. The Microsoft stock-dividend was designed to draw attention away from lower growth, and designed to allow funds that buy only dividend stocks to buy Microsoft, hopefully raising share price.
Anyone who stopped reading because they saw something they disagreed with missed some very interesting points.
Yadda yadda yadda. (Score:2)
The only thing that gets ME fired up about Microsoft is the fact that *MY* Windows 2000 blue screens every time I try to launch NASCAR's PitCommand Java app. Add THAT to your article Mr. Grygus.
Google isn't mentioned (Score:4, Insightful)
As every slashdotter know, they are rapidly taking control over the internet search market. Pretty soon just about everybody may be dependant on Google for internet exposure. If Google doesn't find you, you don't exist. Now that's power in the internet age.
Google may very well end up being for the internet what Microsoft was for the PC.
Google schmoogle (Score:4, Insightful)
Google will only be top of the pile until someone else can come along with a better search engine.
Re:Google schmoogle (Score:4, Interesting)
He's right, software market is toast (Score:5, Interesting)
Enterprise computing is probably the biggest pinata waiting to be burst. Seibel, Oracle, PeopleSoft, CA, IBM, BEA, SAP, SAS, Sybase...more and more these and other enterprise firms are poaching each other's markets, looking for growth. Only 10% will survive. I expect some major players in the enterprise market to vanish in the next five years. On top of this you have open source. Right now Oracle need not worry too much about MySQL, for example, but in five years they will have to worry about MySQL a great deal.
Open source and cheap foreign tech labor are converging to gut the high-margin software biz. I think in a few years people will drastically reconsider this market and profit prospects in it, and the process will be brutal.
Re:He's right, software market is toast (Score:2, Interesting)
It's fast for trivial lookups because it's light weight and has low functionality, and that's the market it's aimed at.
If it tries to take on Oracle then it would leave all it's current users running old versions.
Postgres is the heavyweight of the OSS databases and it already replacing Oracle in some installations. (I believe some TLD servers switched to postgres).
Re:He's right, software market is toast (Score:3, Insightful)
A few years? How many companies do you know that are still left? Most are toasty goodness already. The rest will be soon. There are only two outs: The first is to provide service. Many of the big CRM, HR, and accounting firms already make most of their money consulting on customization rather than actually selling the product. Run the system from a central location and most companies would be much happier. Customization is much easier, too. Second, although product is dead, content is not. That is why there will always be a TurboTax from Intuit and an anti-virus system from Symantec. Microsoft hasn't seemed to catch on to the fact (except with, perhaps MSNBC) that it is really the content people pay for.
So, retool your companies to provide service or content and use the software as only a tool to deliver the same. You'll be better off - unless, of course, you're a programmer... sigh.
I tend to think (Score:2, Interesting)
Not compatible? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that means that Windows software in general is not going to be compatible. This is scary. It took a long, long time before developers caught up with all the changes introduced with Windows 95. MS-DOS games were still being released years later. Lots of good software written for MS-DOS was never brought over to Windows, because it was too much work. But MS-DOS sucked, so this didn't matter too much.
The short version: If Microsoft radically changes how things work for developers--and if it isn't for the better, just different--then developers are going be thrown into a turmoil and have hard choices to make. Those kind of decision points are what make and break companies. It may be the best place to finally say the hell with Microsoft, it's time to go elsewhere.
I'm not saying that Linux or OS X are the best options out there, but they may be better than what's coming.
Re:Not compatible? (Score:3, Interesting)
MS Supporters (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of you actually read it? The article has some very good points and LOTS of information to back it up. I pointed many people to that article and ALL of them found it very informative and enlightening. All of them except one (a severe MS defender) came to the conclusion that MS needs to be checked at the Gates. Yes, XP sucks less than previous version of Windows. But MS is too expensive now. They are not the cheap alternative to others, but rather they are the expensive option that people are now looking for alternatives to.
browser innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
In almost every web browser other than Internet Explorer, innovation is alive and well -- we have popup blocking, ad blocking, tabbed browsing, fine grained scripting control, and nonlinear history traversal, all of which are genuinely valuable innovations that Internet Explorer would do well to adopt.
Re:browser innovation (Score:3, Funny)
Since I switched to Linux I no longer have any of those concerns. Virus? What's a virus???
Re:browser innovation (Score:3, Informative)
IE has (now) 90% of the market share. That means 90% of people use IE. What innovations has IE shown since it achieved that market share? Pretty much none.
So from most people's perspective, there is no browser innovation.
From your (our) perspective, you are quite correct, browser innovation is alive and well, but from most people (90%) it is, indeed, dead.
As a comment on that. I've shown a few people mozilla and they ABSOLUTELY LOVE popup blocking and tabs. IE doesn't have them. These people didn't know such things existed.
That's a failure on our part. We, as a community, need to start showing people these things more.
Virtual PC (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that perhaps there is come credence to this statement. It occurs to me that perhaps the OS won't be backwards comatable at all, but MS just bought all of the Virtual PC technology from Connectix, and it makes a lot of sense that they would provide something similar to Classic in Mac OS X. The new OS would not be compatable with existing software, but the old software would still run in emulation. Not the perfect solution (as we've experienced with Classic), but not a bad solution either...
Wadam
More than usual: RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Like he said at the top, everything in there is based on "real trends well known in the industry". I haven't seen any criticisms yet that contradict this.
He so crazy. (Score:2, Informative)
"The German Bundeswher (Department of Defense) has banned Microsoft products due to real and "suspected" security problems (like little back doors for the NSA (X64, X17), for instance)."
Overall guy comes off as a right nutjob. If I were Microsoft I'd be thinking restraining order.
This guy is suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
At the root of Microsoft's problems is its financial structure. Leveraged by stock options and other financial tricks (R7), it depends heavily on rapid revenue growth and increasing stock value. When you've saturated your market (over 90%), and that market is stagnant, rapid revenue growth becomes difficult. Should future growth look poor, holders of stock options are likely to cash out, and much of that $43 Billion evaporates.
Where does he think the money goes, exactly? A large overhang of options is bad for stockholders (including Bill Gates, et al.) but it's a non-cash charge to the company, if they even choose to take the charge at all (which apparently they haven't in the past). If you check the linked reference in the article, it takes you to some rant that specifically tells you, among other things, not to try to read the financials for yourself, just take his word that there's massive abuse going on. Yeah, right.
One of the ways a company can "make it up" to their shareholders for issuing a lot of options is to buy stock on the open market to take back those dilutive shares. According to this [microsoft.com] over the last three fiscal years, MS has spent (net) over US$11 billion repurchasing stock. Maybe Bill doesn't like having the value of his holdings beat down by options any more than any other stockholder does.
I'm not saying everything in the article is bullshit, but I don't think I would run around quoting this guy until I did a lot of homework for myself.
I completely agree (Score:3, Insightful)
This particular paragraph -- the one pointed out by the parent post -- truly shows the ignorance of the person who wrote the article. The financial structure the author describes is typical of "new economy" companies -- Amazon.com, Priceline, and others which has long-since gone bankrupt, were all based on the principle of rapid revenue growth and increasing stock value. But NOT Microsoft, which has long been lauded by business leaders as a "new economy" company with an essentially "old economy" financial structure -- much more like IBM -- than a new economy structure which the author describes. Futhermore, Microsoft pioneered the idea of giving employees actual stock -- and not options. (I would be happy to clarify that point -- just post a question)
The author of the article has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, at least when it comes to this paragraph. It looks like he's just throwing around buzzwords in an attempt to gain an audience.
-Shylock0
Questions and intelligent comments often answered. Flames ignored. Post responsibly.
This paragraph epitomizes the whole article. (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, who writes a serious article like this with that kind of language. "Two synapses to rub together"... excuse me? That might be good for Slashdot-type casual discussion but if you want your article to be taken seriously by small business owners you can't be talking like that.
Also, seen what power of Napster? The power to download music for free? Because let me assure you, that if they had 'leveraged the power of Napster' by charging some sort of money to get songs through it, that would have killed Napster just as effectively as suing the company did. Overall, this guy seems more like an angry geek with a vendetta than a serious business analyst.
Poor research (Score:3, Insightful)
When he talks about Longhorn, he states that "all software will have to be re-written" but that's not true at all. As long as the APIs retain backwards compatibility, most programs should adapt to the new file system just fine. Some sophisticated tools may need to be redone from scratch, but hey, making an omlette requres breaking eggs.
He also says some crap about having to pay a fee to microsoft to transfer files from a CD to your hard drive, because it is a database transfer. This to me just dosent sound right. CDFS isnt changing for the rest of the life of CDs. (I hope) CDs will always have files on them. Unless microsoft is adding value to something, they cant charge for it. Even Microsoft bashers dont accuse MS of this.
The third thing is that "I find it probable Longhorn will largely end the use of reliable, low cost servers (Linux, NetWare) for Windows users. This will set the stage for serious increases in licensing costs for already costly Windows server software." How would microsoft's desktop OS possibly effect how people use low end servers running Linux or (???) Netware?
This is an interesting summation, but the tabloid writing makes it not worth reading.
Re:Poor research (Score:3, Informative)
FileServer - If the desktop OS can no longer access the linux fileserver because there are no longer and "drives" or "folders" or even "files" -- this would possible affect the servers' use.
Refer to the many, many posts that say that backward compatibility is not in the product design
A little personal experience (Score:3, Insightful)
It is _never_ going to get better. Microsoft is going to treat me like a criminal forever. It's time to get out of this upgrade cycle. They are going to continually put out trash like WinME and then laugh their way to their porsche, bought with my money.
After dinner, I went downstairs, burned myself some RedHat CDs, and installed them onto a second hard drive. I've never looked back since, and am considering wiping the Windows partition off for good.
What I'm trying to say is, sometimes, losing a little bit of functionality for now is probably worth it to break out of the endless loop of paying money to Microsoft and getting shafted in return.
-Erwos
A lot of hot air, but two great quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
Something I've noticed subconsciously without actually considering. How anyone can be so entralled with wealth, let alone some one else's wealth is beyond me. And those in the postion of "decision makers" seem to be Gates fanboys a lot more than those of us actually dealing directly with MS products.
Let's get a couple of things straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Microsoft breaking compatibility at the binary level.
I'm not sure why no one thinks this would be likely. Microsoft would have little trouble writing a compatibility layer to make sure older applications continue to work, while ensuring that in order to upgrade them, you end up with new versions that only run natively on the new OS.
2) New DB file system requiring a server.
The article isn't necessarily referring to the commonly perceived notion of a server. A server in operating system terminology is NOTHING more than a program that responds to requests from client programs. When software is written this way, it makes it much easier to make that software able to run across networks, but having a network involved is NOT a requirement.
Microsoft is researching a new file system format that uses database concepts. This will allow queries, transactional access to files, rollbacks, commits, etc. This will obviate the need for database systems that run independantly of the OS. Say good-bye to Windows platform competition in that area.
And yes, the file format would be "incompatible" with others. Just like FAT-32 is incompatible with NTFS, to the point that the older Windows OSes can't read disks formatted with the newer OSes unless you purchase special software.
3) Some people seem surprised that Microsoft might make even older hardware incompatible. They don't care. If they can push the XBox into enough homes, they can start controlling the PC hardware market, too. There would no longer be a need to try to pressure the various manufacturers into complying with Microsoft's whims. They make the hardware, supply the OS and software, make you pay a regular subscription fee to access it, and control all the content.
Microsoft is getting ready to pull off something that Disney can only dream about. Unless, of course, they formed some kind of merger or other partnership... publishing, TV, movies, internet, gaming, and controlling the hardware and software involved in delivering it? It's a media mogul's wet dream, and Bill Gates is fast asleep with a big smile on his face.
MS bought Concentrix for a reason (Score:5, Interesting)
It is quite possible that this is the solution that will be used for for Longhorn. While the native OS will not be able to run the software, the VM will have no problem with it. Remember, MS isn't stupid. While their software may have security problems, and their buisness practices questionable... they do know what they are doing. If they didn't, why would the be everywhere?
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:5, Informative)
If they get rid of that, there will be nothing holding us back from a complete shift to either Linux or MacOS. And I will go out of my way to help everyone I know switch too.
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:2)
So did I. Last time I spoke to MS (last monday) they were saying that Longhorn (server) had been cancelled, and everything in it moved to the release that was meant to come after, and the Longhorn (desktop) was going to be released as a replacement for XP. If you're going to replace XP with an OS that has no support for hardware or software you may as well use BeOS (sorry, cheap shot. I liked BeOS, but the lack of actually being able to do anything with it other than say 'Wow' got to me after a while).
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:2)
I would guess that in the long run MS will just copy Apple (again) and provide an emulation mode to manage both the hardware (MC68xxx to PowerPC) and software (classic to OS X).
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:2)
It's not so far-fetched as that. Didn't Apple do something similar with either System 7 or System 8, several years ago?
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:5, Interesting)
The core OS has 0 backward compatibility.
Running any legacy code, i.e. everything you have, requires you to buy MS Plus for Longhorn.
Note the two beautiful features of this:
1) Mr. Softy blows off the anti-trust suit, as the article mentions. "Hey, it's not Microsoft Windows!"
2) Mr. Softy gets you to pay again to use the stuff you already have.
Let not the technically vacuous, yet legally air-tight, nature of the argument cause you to discount its implementability.
Two responses are appropriate:
1) Admire the business savvy involved.
2) Boot Linux.
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's bullshit. Take a closer look at the article. It has so much disinformation it's not even funny.
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:2)
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:3)
Re:I stopped reading when I got to this: (Score:3)
So, lets see, that copy of Everquest you've been playing for 3 years doesn't work on your new computer, along with your entire software collection.
Good way to get people to upgrade. Hey, upgrade now and lose everything!
Re:This guy is on crack.. (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I thought he was a burnt sienna, but I guess that depends on who you ask.
Re:It is Monday (Score:2, Funny)
Re:microsoft (Score:2, Informative)
40,500,000,000 / 60 = 675000000 minutes.
675000000 / 60 = 11250000 hours
11250000 / 24 = 468750 days
468750 / 365.25 = 1283.35 years
So... he could spend it all in a mere 1283 years. Not bad.. Here's hoping I didn't royally screw up MY math.