Post-Gates Microsoft - What they should do to stay alive...

[MShock]

With Gates leaving Microsoft, many have opinions on how to run the company. Macworld begins and interesting discussion http://www.macworld.com/article/134184/2008/06/ms_billgates.html .

I believe that no one has really touch the business architecture of Microsoft... it is all based on R&D revenues at this point. Financing projects to hopefully perfect them is key to Microsoft making money as a long term strategy, but in the short term that looses Microsoft a lot of money. Re-branding and marketing aside, MS needs to understand that most of their money comes from advertising. With that said, they should drop all projects non-essential, open source Windows (which provides a new source of advertising and money), and refocus on Web 2.0 integration. This includes being a top iPhone programmer.

Any other thoughts?

[kingmohd84]

why do we want them to stay?
i think all their software is big bloatware, their system make life unhappy for humans with its errors, dlls, faults and viruses,
their systems are always hungry for power (remember when xp came out?)
msn messenger as a program sucks big time , it hardly connects with me, i have been slave for hotmail as I cant forward the emails unless you pay, not necessary,

Almost all the other operating systems are better
mac, linux, even be-os and os 9
i think the last system was fine with microsoft was dos, and i think we gave them enough time to make up for it....

[Michael CM1]

I really don't see them going anywhere but down. Their whole business model for the past decade or so has been "buy Windows because you have to!" When major apps were written for only Windows, what choice did most companies and home users have?

But now, things have changed. A lot of things are going to Web-based apps (see Google). With IE, Safari, and Firefox having a decent competition in that arena, Microsoft won't be quite so dominant. You will still have idjuts like TBS.com that require Windows/IE for video playback (why do people do this?), but most stuff developed for the Web seems to be usable on all popular Web browsers.

Microsoft really needs to learn how to innovate because, well, they don't. Quick, name the last product Microsoft made that really showed some innovation. Nintendo beat them with the Wii's controller, Apple and others beat them with the iPod/iPhone, Vista seems to be one giant mistake. I just don't see them pushing anybody with innovation.

[Michael CM1]

why do we want them to stay?
i think all their software is big bloatware, their system make life unhappy for humans with its errors, dlls, faults and viruses,
their systems are always hungry for power (remember when xp came out?)
msn messenger as a program sucks big time , it hardly connects with me, i have been slave for hotmail as I cant forward the emails unless you pay, not necessary,

Almost all the other operating systems are better
mac, linux, even be-os and os 9
i think the last system was fine with microsoft was dos, and i think we gave them enough time to make up for it....

One thing you almost hit was they are WAY too concerned with legacy support. I can tell you that OS 9 apps on OS X cause WAY more problems than native apps. There are rumors that Apple will do away with OS 9 support in 10.6, which is a good move whenever it happens. It's smart to support your old customers for a while, but sometime you have to concentrate on making stuff better for the future.

When I used Windows, it really did seem like it was trying to do everything by running new apps yet still supporting DOS and Windows 3.1 stuff. If your biz can't upgrade software about once a decade, you may need to look at another line of work.

[clevin]

worry about M$ going down? LOL. start worry when non-windows OSes have 10% global share.

One thing you almost hit was they are WAY too concerned with legacy support. I can tell you that OS 9 apps on OS X cause WAY more problems than native apps. There are rumors that Apple will do away with OS 9 support in 10.6.

The logic is so pretentious its unrealistic. Way too concerned with legacy support? If it take apple 10 years to get over a legacy code that nobody use, how many years would take apple to do so with a 95% marketshare OS?

Legacy, means old, but hey, it still does way more than OSX. With great effeciency.

[dejo]

There are rumors that Apple will do away with OS 9 support in 10.6
Except OS 9 support (Classic mode) ended with 10.5. Did you mean PowerPC support?

[IJ Reilly]

With Gates leaving Microsoft, many have opinions on how to run the company. Macworld begins and interesting discussion http://www.macworld.com/article/134184/2008/06/ms_billgates.html .

Good stuff. These are really excellent suggestions, but it's clear that Microsoft is either unwilling or incapable of implementing them -- or unwilling to be capable. They've become too big, too slow, too arrogant. They lack the incentive to change their approach. In fact, ironically, they've become the very thing they abhorred back in the old days: IBM.

[chagla]

why do we want them to stay?
i think all their software is big bloatware, their system make life unhappy for humans with its errors, dlls, faults and viruses,
their systems are always hungry for power (remember when xp came out?)
msn messenger as a program sucks big time , it hardly connects with me, i have been slave for hotmail as I cant forward the emails unless you pay, not necessary,

Almost all the other operating systems are better
mac, linux, even be-os and os 9
i think the last system was fine with microsoft was dos, and i think we gave them enough time to make up for it....
umm..yah.. i agree with you.
windows just makes life and society unhappy. we are a wonderful society with guns, criminals, drugs, rapists, mobs and what not. so according to your logic, it would be my fault that someone else committs a crime. how are you connecting an independent party's action (write malicious codes) to windows? how is that Windows's fault?

one really has tbe quite dense headed to fall for the "million dollar" prize they've just won on the internet and click "yes" to every single thing on the internet.

as for hotmail, i don't know which "hotmail" you use, but i'm using it for 9 years and have been able to forward mails without any payment.

as for other operating systems being better, yah, some specific tasks can be done better in windows and other os's do better but you know what? there are more things windows does better than other os's and that's why you see windows everywhere. tell me WHY then other operating system's aren't ruling? it's not like microsoft is forcing everyone to use windows. are they?

thanks.

[martychang]

it's not like microsoft is forcing everyone to use windows. are they?

A lot of people don't know anything else exists. Many of them don't know what Windows is, it's just "the computer." This stupidity/ignorance decreases as you go up tier after tier after tier, but each one still has a misguided reason to stick with Windows:

"It sucks because it's not Windows!": rejects all change
"It can't run my apps!": ignorance of other platforms compatibility technologies, rejects change to apps with equivalent functionality
"GAMESGAMESGAMES": a beast in itself, games won't leave windows until people buy games for Mac/Linux

In all cases people don't understand that most computer problems like viruses, fragmentation, and hyper-convolusion(3-5 different places for system settings in the GUI? a CLI with HUGE SYNTAX, barely existant auto-completion, and absurdly long switches?) in the interfaces are unique to Windows. They think that's how computers are and it can't be changed, when in fact it's totally 100% unique to Windows, and no other computing system behaves in this asinine way.

[clevin]

A lot of people don't know anything else exists.

"It sucks because it's not Windows!"

"It can't run my apps!"

Games won't leave windows until people buy games for Mac/Linux

In all cases people don't understand that most computer problems like viruses, are unique to Windows.


I understand the reasoning, but reasoning, as I mentioned in other posts, is just reasoning, it can serve as a fine excuse, but doesn't solve the problems.

Windows, for whatever shortcoming you can see, has its strength, and that strength probably outweigh its weakness right now , if you think 95% of people use windows just because they are all stupid, then you are probably wrong.

PS. virus isn't unique to windows. You can argue numbers, which I don't think anybody ha accurate # of active viruses for vista, but you can't portray OSX or linux as virus proof.

[Eraserhead]

PS. virus isn't unique to windows. You can argue numbers, which I don't think anybody ha accurate # of active viruses for vista, but you can't portray OSX or linux as virus proof.

Viruses aren't really a problem now, its generally ad-ware and other malware..

[mahashel]

In fact, ironically, they've become the very thing they abhorred back in the old days: IBM.

That's probably my favorite summarization of modern Microsoft thus far.
They've become the very institution they were founded in rebellion against.. where does the dream take them from here? :confused:

[Eraserhead]

That's probably my favorite summarization of modern Microsoft thus far.
They've become the very institution they were founded in rebellion against.. where does the dream take them from here? :confused:

IBM is still damn successful though.

[IJ Reilly]

That's probably my favorite summarization of modern Microsoft thus far.
They've become the very institution they were founded in rebellion against.. where does the dream take them from here? :confused:

Sometimes the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Microsoft is what it is today because IBM couldn't design an empty box in a year, let alone, a computer and an operating system. That's how Gates & Co. got the DOS job in the first place. Now Microsoft with all of their riches and resources and market lock-in can't even revise an operating system in less than five years. The dream has become a nightmare, but I doubt very much that anyone at Microsoft knows it yet. They're so fat and happy that they naturally assume they're also as good any they need to be. Gates leaving his day-to-day role is not a good omen -- if nothing else, Bill was always hungry and lived to win. As nearly as I can tell, a complete knucklehead is now running the show. How long before we start hearing the question, "what went wrong at Microsoft?"

[martychang]

I understand the reasoning, but reasoning, as I mentioned in other posts, is just reasoning, it can serve as a fine excuse, but doesn't solve the problems.

Windows, for whatever shortcoming you can see, has its strength, and that strength probably outweigh its weakness right now , if you think 95% of people use windows just because they are all stupid, then you are probably wrong.

PS. virus isn't unique to windows. You can argue numbers, which I don't think anybody ha accurate # of active viruses for vista, but you can't portray OSX or linux as virus proof.

What is that strength? I really truly have no idea. Name a real strength Windows has, even one, of any magnitude(or lack thereof). I'm completely serious :confused:

Virus proof? Yes, they are, at least until Apple decides to undermine UNIX even more. Viruses are programs that copy themselves to a system without any permission or knowledge or explicit aid from the user, by modifying themselves into an existing file. Worms are the same, but do not need to be attached to an existing file, they can operate on their own, though they may attack by modifying files for other purposes. Mac OS X and Linux have security models which do not allow anything like this to happen unless an outside program circumvents the entire security model.

Now, TROJAN Proof? No, definitely not, we've seen this with the ARDAgent fiasco, which is actually a broader problem with Applescript/Cocoa integration. But very few systems(i.e. none I know of) can shield users from their own trusting nature, not without being unusable. And stuff like spyware or keyloggers could easily be added to a system once it's been compromised by a Trojan, but only if the user is dim enough to run one in the first place.

Which is the BIG difference: A virus or worm is something that can get in on it's own and propogate on it's own, without any help other than by attaching to a existing program(in the case of a virus rather than a worm), and seeing the destination filesystem. A Trojan requires a user to at the very least launch something(not necessarily type in their admin password, as with the Applescript/Cocoa + SUID root exploit), but that means an alert and savvy user is immune.

I will admit that Trojans are very prominent, that most users will run them unknowingly, and that once run they open up all kinds of holes that could be used to insert, viruses, worms, spyware, keyloggers, anything(i.e. it circumvents the entire security model). So in that sense you might say that Mac OS X and Linux aren't virus immune, but that's not fair.

The user must open the door with the Trojan, that's basically saying it's not Virus immune if a user can successfully install a virus voluntarily(when he has rights to manipulate that section of the filesystem): if the user cannot voluntarily perform actions they have the rights to do, the system is secured beyond functionality.

[Scooterman1]

After having the iPhone, I can't wait to get my Mac.
So that I can hurry up and load Windows,
So that I can run all of the great Apps I have.
Cause if I get a Mac to do this, I won't have any Viruses,
And get shunned for using Windows. (If I have a Mac, it's O.K. to use Windows) Right?

[IJ Reilly]

IBM is still damn successful though.

How many IBM products do you own?

Before you answer that question, consider that IBM invented the PC hardware architecture everyone uses now, but that they don't even manufacture PCs anymore. That's successful all right, damned successful. Also consider that during one year in the early '90s IBM lost more money than any corporation had to that time. They may have recovered since then, but the IBM of today is a shadow of its former self. For many decades IBM epitomized the great American corporation. Who thinks about them that way now?

[Scooterman1]

Yes, but IBM wasn't built on the PC. Far from it. They were pioneers when there wasn't much else that was an industry standard, like they were.

[sushi]

Yes, but IBM wasn't built on the PC
Yep, IBM was built on "Big Iron" as we used to call it.

Microsoft was built by Bill and Paul. Steve was a late comer to the party. It will be interesting to see if he will be able to lead Microsoft and keep it successful like Bill did.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, but IBM wasn't built on the PC. Far from it. They were pioneers when there wasn't much else that was an industry standard, like they were.

IBM was built on the tabulating machine, the punchcard reader and electric typewriters. You don't see many of them around anymore, do you? So they invented the PC, then completely lost control of it, while Microsoft became richer than God. Then when they tried to recoup their losses with OS/2, they got in even deeper.

[Eraserhead]

How many IBM products do you own?

Before you answer that question, consider that IBM invented the PC hardware architecture everyone uses now, but that they don't even manufacture PCs anymore. That's successful all right, damned successful. Also consider that during one year in the early '90s IBM lost more money than any corporation had to that time. They may have recovered since then, but the IBM of today is a shadow of its former self. For many decades IBM epitomized the great American corporation. Who thinks about them that way now?

Yes IBM was massively successful before, and more so than today on the back of their large computers and previously tabulating machines. However I'd hardly call a company who made $2 billion net profit last quarter a failure. They are still worth about as much as Google and Apple.

[elppa]

Quick, name the last product Microsoft made that really showed some innovation.

XMLHTTP Request.

It's the foundation of many of the so-called Web 2.0 applications and makes web pages far more dynamic (enabling communication with the server without refreshing).

Do I get a prize? ;)

Yes, they are, at least until Apple decides to undermine UNIX even more.

What is this UNIX exactly that Apple has undermined?

UNIX seems a mis-mash of standards and ideas with a long history. OS X has a XNU Kernel. XNU stands for “X is not UNIX”, yet it is UNIX 03 certificated (http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1190p.pdf).

I understand Apple uses a non UNIX file-system and hence have had to make modifications to accommodate that (for compatibility reasons). What other examples are there of Apple “breaking” UNIX?

[clevin]

What is that strength? I really truly have no idea. Name a real strength Windows has, even one, of any magnitude(or lack thereof). I'm completely serious :confused:

1. still compatible with largest number of hardwares.
2. open business mode that give end users as well as computer industry players (software makers, hardware makers) plenty of space to act and improve.
3. still run most apps faster than unix/linux/osx, sure you can argue about vulnerability with with or system booting speed, but strength out weigh others in this case, IMHO
4. still offers largest number of apps, games, productivity, all type. Now I admit thats an inherit advantages from years of domination, but hey, fact is fact, isn't it? :)
5. still offers best on screen font rendering. Now I admit again there is copyright issue that sort of prevent linux from improving. what can I say. copyleft is the way. I don't stand on the side of copyright, but i have to admit the fact.


Virus proof? Yes, they are, at least until Apple decides to undermine UNIX even more. Mac OS X and Linux have security models which do not allow anything like this to happen unless an outside program circumvents the entire security model.

Now, TROJAN Proof? No, definitely not, .
"unless"... i guess you think its impossible, to me, hundreds of millions of code can't be perfect, and I won't ever say "never gonna happen".

How many IBM products do you own?


there are more ways to be successful than just selling computers.

[martychang]

1. still compatible with largest number of hardwares.
2. open business mode that give end users as well as computer industry players (software makers, hardware makers) plenty of space to act and improve.
3. still run most apps faster than unix/linux/osx, sure you can argue about vulnerability with with or system booting speed, but strength out weigh others in this case, IMHO
4. still offers largest number of apps, games, productivity, all type. Now I admit thats an inherit advantages from years of domination, but hey, fact is fact, isn't it? :)
5. still offers best on screen font rendering. Now I admit again there is copyright issue that sort of prevent linux from improving. what can I say. copyleft is the way. I don't stand on the side of copyright, but i have to admit the fact.


"unless"... i guess you think its impossible, to me, hundreds of millions of code can't be perfect, and I won't ever say "never gonna happen".



there are more ways to be successful than just selling computers.

1. Not if you go to all the different Processor architectures in use, and the hardware used in those platforms. Linux has the edge there. Even so, just being compatible with a lot of hardware is meaningless.
2. Linux isn't open?
3. What? They all have speed advantages in the right situation, Windows is fastest for 3D games(and Mac is quite slow at that on the other hand), but that's all I can think of in terms of Windows being faster. I admit I don't use every type of software on the planet.
4. Largest number, once again pretty much meaningless just like hardware. Linux still has a couple areas where there are no comparable replacements, but Mac OS X has suitable replacements for everything Windows has an app for, except games, which are inherently unique products.
5. Entirely opinion, I think Windows has the worst font rendering. Some Linux distros have it worse than Windows but the modern ones tend to have very Mac OS X-like font rendering, which I find more appealing. To each their own.

No code is perfect yes, but it has to be a known problem for it to be exploited, and once it's known it gets patched(well, with Linux maintainers and Microsoft anyway, Apple is the slowpoke). Also, a larger problem than mere code errors is DESIGN FLAWS, which anything UNIX holds miles high above Windows. It's the design flaws that give Windows these... "unique" qualities, and they're also why Windows is so difficult to fix.

On the topic of IBM I agree with you, we don't own IBM products because we don't own mainframes. Have you ever seen a System Z, IJ Reily? They're majesty in computer form :D

[killerrobot]

Just gotta say that this seems like quite an ignorant post thinking that no one at Microsoft is capable of doing anything. Yeah, I'm sure everyone is a moron there.:rolleyes:

This is the same as saying that once SJ leaves Apple its doomed because no one will have the foresight needed to see where the future of the industry is.

As far as IBM being successful why the hell are they around 30 years later if they aren't? Where's the proof that they aren't successful?

[elppa]

Best on screen font rendering.

[1] Best is highly subjective. On my machine characters with larger font sizes look have blocky edges in Vista, not so using the Quartz model.
[2] They only went system wide anti aliasing with Vista, in XP it was an option, buried deep in a couple of layers of dialog boxes.
[3] Many businesses and users still use XP, many companies use 2000, which doesn't have any clear type support.

Vista shipped in 2007. For the majority of the last decade, Mac users saw this:
http://www.typophile.com/files/waterfall_mac_4436.gif

Whilst Windows users saw this:
http://www.typophile.com/files/waterfall_pc_noct_4439.gif


Now they see this:
http://www.typophile.com/files/waterfall_pc_ct_6182.gif

If we're looking for real strengths of Windows through the years over other systems, then font rendering isn't one.

[clevin]

1. Not if you go to all the different Processor architectures in use, and the hardware used in those platforms. Linux has the edge there. Even so, just being compatible with a lot of hardware is meaningless.
2. Linux isn't open?
3. What? They all have speed advantages in the right situation, Windows is fastest for 3D games(and Mac is quite slow at that on the other hand), but that's all I can think of in terms of Windows being faster. I admit I don't use every type of software on the planet.
4. Largest number, once again pretty much meaningless just like hardware.
5. Entirely opinion, I think Windows has the worst font rendering.


I thought you were serious :) I won't get into argument and personal opinions, if you think linux and OSX support more hardwares and softwares, ...... I dont think I care about convincing anybody. There are 1 billion computer users out there after all.

about above Mr. e,,, who posted a whole screen of screen capture. first XP has systemwide AA, its fine you want to argue its not on by default and need 5 clicks and 3 level of penal to get it, but its there 7 years ago. You don't need to imply all windows users, there are almost 1 billion of them, even if only a small fraction of them "discovered" that option, there are still more windows users saw AA fonts than all OSX users add up together. Vista has 14% market share, by the way.

Its fine you like OSX's bold font, Again, Im not interested in convincing anybody here, 1 billion users out there. I respect their judgment. 95% of the reviewers think safari for windows' font suck, i know you dont agree, but there is no one opinion dedicate the conclusion, I don't think all reviewers are stupider than you or me.

[BlakTornado]

Microsoft needs to stop laying it's eggs in lots of different nests, leaving them and hoping they hatch by some sort of miracle.

They need to sit down and focus on their main aspirations - not the billions of markets that they're trying to enter now. Sure, they're a big company, but am I the only one thinking that the Microsoft monopoly is more of a Microsoft desperation?

Microsoft need to admit defeat on minor things such as SilverLight and Zune, and then focus on more successful things, like Windows, Xbox and Windows Live (well, Windows Live Mail and Messenger, at least).

[martychang]

I thought you were serious :) I won't get into argument and personal opinions, if you think linux and OSX support more hardwares and softwares, ...... I dont think I care about convincing anybody. There are 1 billion computer users out there after all.

Never said Linux and OS X support more hardware and software, I said that the difference isn't meaningful, since the bases are all covered for hardware and software on either platform either way(With the possible exception of Linux missing a few apps for certain purposes).

I simply threw in the fact that Linux supports more than just Intel(and Itanium for some crippled server products), architectures like PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, Motorola, ARM, and pretty much anything else ever released, and the respective hardware for those architectures. That and Linux is much better with support for older Intel hardware than Windows.

[Dustman]

Never said Linux and OS X support more hardware and software, I said that the difference isn't meaningful, since the bases are all covered for hardware and software on either platform either way(With the possible exception of Linux missing a few apps for certain purposes).

I simply threw in the fact that Linux supports more than just Intel(and Itanium for some crippled server products), architectures like PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, Motorola, ARM, and pretty much anything else ever released, and the respective hardware for those architectures. That and Linux is much better with support for older Intel hardware than Windows.

Yeah but have fun looking for Linux drivers.. or even installing the operating system itself for that matter. Linux is useless unless you have experience outside Windows and OS X. I have tried several different distributions of Linux to try to rid myself of Microsoft, all my attempts failed. (and i definetly know my way around a computer)

[Eraserhead]

1. still compatible with largest number of hardwares.
2. open business mode that give end users as well as computer industry players (software makers, hardware makers) plenty of space to act and improve.
3. still run most apps faster than unix/linux/osx, sure you can argue about vulnerability with with or system booting speed, but strength out weigh others in this case, IMHO
4. still offers largest number of apps, games, productivity, all type. Now I admit thats an inherit advantages from years of domination, but hey, fact is fact, isn't it? :)
5. still offers best on screen font rendering. Now I admit again there is copyright issue that sort of prevent linux from improving. what can I say. copyleft is the way. I don't stand on the side of copyright, but i have to admit the fact.

I agree with 1, 2 and 4, 3 is probably true, but I'm not sure. 5 is complete rubbish, there is a reason newspaper production is done on the Mac and this is one of them. Windows may be better than Linux, but the Mac is definitely superior to both.

[chagla]

Yeah but have fun looking for Linux drivers.. or even installing the operating system itself for that matter. Linux is useless unless you have experience outside Windows and OS X. I have tried several different distributions of Linux to try to rid myself of Microsoft, all my attempts failed. (and i definetly know my way around a computer)i second that.
i tried opensuse, fedora, centos, debian, slackware etc. they seem to be missing at least one crucial component. like the wireless card, or the graphics, sound i can live w/out. so i just had to revert back to windows. not that it was bad or wanted to get rid of, just wanted some tux*perience. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Yes IBM was massively successful before, and more so than today on the back of their large computers and previously tabulating machines. However I'd hardly call a company who made $2 billion net profit last quarter a failure. They are still worth about as much as Google and Apple.

I never called IBM a "failure." The point is they are objectively far less successful now than they were in their heyday, and the turning point was the 1980s, when they failed to grasp the importance of the desktop computer. In fact they managed to engineer handing over control of this industry to a very tiny company called Microsoft, which proceeded to eat their lunch for the next 15 years.

Perhaps if you don't recall how IBM was regarded during the decades of the '50s, '60s and '70s, you might think that they're a hugely successful company today. But if you do recall their peak years, you know that their status is substantially reduced, and it happened because they missed the transition to desktop computing about as completely as humanly possible.

[Eraserhead]

I never called IBM a "failure."

I just think "shadow of the former self" means failure, probably a cultural thing ;).

[IJ Reilly]

I just think "shadow of the former self" means failure, probably a cultural thing ;).

I don't think so... the expression should imply a substantially reduced status, which I believe applies in this case. IBM really was for many decades one of the world's most respected (and feared) corporations. During the '60s, they were subjected to possibly the most prominent antirust law enforcement action since Standard Oil. They were that powerful -- the Microsoft of their day, and then some. What's more, I think it's generally under-appreciated how completely IBM sabotaged their opportunities in desktop computing. They went beyond missing it -- they created the most dangerous competitor they'd ever faced, essentially out of whole cloth. That's a failure by any reckoning, wouldn't you say?

[MShock]

back to the real question before the weird debate about screen rendering, should MS be allowed to exist? Are they bad for business, good for competition? I still say they need to figure out who and what they are and freaking do it, meaning to be a software company, they have to open source. Maybe buy Novell or Norton for a linux kernal. Windows needs to refocus on developers much like Apple has and will with Snow Leopard.

[martychang]

I still say they need to figure out who and what they are and freaking do it, meaning to be a software company, they have to open source. Maybe buy Novell or Norton for a linux kernal. Windows needs to refocus on developers much like Apple has and will with Snow Leopard.

Erm, what? They don't need to buy anyone for a Linux kernel, they or anyone else can just start making a Linux OS as long as they don't include components which conflict with the GPL.

What they need to do is make a clean break from reverse compatibility in the main OS, do something like the OS 9 -> OS X transition, to a system that is manageable and secure. Make a filesystem with VMS/NTFS style permissions that doesn't suffer from uncontrolled fragmentation. Make a real OS with a real security model that's consistent. No registry, make the configuration plainly viewable text files that are clearly separated based on the application or subsystem they pertain to, and don't let just any program create such a text file in the system configuration area. Protect system locations, no more 3rd party developers dropping things in Windows\system32. Give power back to the Administrator user, and make people run as limited users: making and Administrator act as a limited user was never the answer. Get a stigma on the Administrator similar to the stigma of the root account in UNIX.

Or heck, join the party and make a Microsoft UNIX system. I would instantly give them another chance if they made a real UNIX OS.

[clevin]

back to the real question before the weird debate about screen rendering, 1 should MS be allowed to exist? 2Are they bad for business, good for competition? I still say they need to figure out who and what they are and freaking do it, 3meaning to be a software company, they have to open source. 4Maybe buy Novell or Norton for a linux kernal. Windows needs to refocus on developers much like Apple has and will with Snow Leopard.

1. well, allow, disallow? what can you do? and why do you do it?
2. yes, they are good for business, for all computer industry who are around it. Apple is bad for business, because it kills other hardware companies, as well as software companies.
3. Although I appreciate the open source idea. At this point, no way to mandate it. Apple isn't a open source company neither...
4. I think that's a illogical statement that convey no reasonable message......

[Eraserhead]

4. I think that's a illogical statement that convey no reasonable message......

Microsoft's frameworks all suck, so actually the second part of this is a fair point. See this (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-III.ars) for why.

[clevin]

Microsoft's frameworks all suck, so actually the second part of this is a fair point. See this (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-III.ars) for why.

I hope I completely understand the point that author trying to make, but too much technical terms. was it just all about interface and predefined functions of cocoa?

I know too few to argue which develop environment is better or easier. Maybe more contributors to this topic can help me understand more.

PS. I checked the discussion, even more confusing. OS life time is quite long, I will wait for it to fight out. If apple has anything better to offer, just do it. Less offensive PR might be a good start to establish a honest image of the company.

[IJ Reilly]

Or heck, join the party and make a Microsoft UNIX system. I would instantly give them another chance if they made a real UNIX OS.

Trivia question: Which company, Microsoft or Apple, had a Unix OS first?

[elppa]

Trivia question: Which company, Microsoft or Apple, had a Unix OS first?

Microsoft. Xenix was it?

[martychang]

Trivia question: Which company, Microsoft or Apple, had a Unix OS first?

Yes, they did, and it was Xenix. But I have no idea how I'd react if they were actually keeping it up to date in the background, never releasing it.

The point is they don't have one now, and with Linux and FreeBSD being as open as they are today I can hardly imagine they wouldn't have made a modern one by now if they intended to try. Time will tell though.

[JNB]

In answer to the original question, fire Ballmer. He thinks he's Jack Welch, but is more like Chris Farley.

There's really too much talent in Redmond for them not to be successful. MS's failures are that of leadership, not skill or ability in the trenches.

[IJ Reilly]

Microsoft. Xenix was it?

Yes, they did, and it was Xenix. But I have no idea how I'd react if they were actually keeping it up to date in the background, never releasing it.

The point is they don't have one now, and with Linux and FreeBSD being as open as they are today I can hardly imagine they wouldn't have made a modern one by now if they intended to try. Time will tell though.

Xenix it is. Microsoft didn't create Xenix, it was actually licensed from AT&T. The Intel port was performed by the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) which ended up owning it when Microsoft moved on to other things. Later, Microsoft tried to hamstring SCO's development of Xenix, and more recently it was discovered that Microsoft has some business relationship with SCO, particularly after SCO tried to make the case that Linux infringed on SCO's copyrights. It's quite a ball of wax and fertile ground for rumors and conspiracy theories.

[heatmiser]

This diary reads like a bunch of Zuners talking about what "the iPod should do to stay alive." The self-delusion required to entertain such a thought process is quite impressive.

[Eraserhead]

I hope I completely understand the point that author trying to make, but too much technical terms. was it just all about interface and predefined functions of cocoa?

I know too few to argue which develop environment is better or easier. Maybe more contributors to this topic can help me understand more.

He's written several articles (both linked at the top of the Cocoa one) on Windows development, and as a Windows developer for a number of years he highlights the large number of flaws which haven't been fixed for a long time, many of them existed in Windows in the 1980's are still exist today.

PS. I checked the discussion, even more confusing. OS life time is quite long, I will wait for it to fight out. If apple has anything better to offer, just do it. Less offensive PR might be a good start to establish a honest image of the company.

They do, which is why the Mac software scene isn't totally embarrassing.

[idyll]

I worry about the day Jobs leaves Apple more than I do about the day Gates leaves Microsoft. :(