Slashdot Mirror

is that there are too many software packages in use by organizations that require legacy support that won't work within many new browsers. My company has software that requires IE9 with outdated plugins that haven't been developed since 2003

That rhetoric used to be true but not anymore. I hate to tell you, your company is the minority and it's becoming more of a minority every day. Several problems with your argument are IE9 runs on which version of Windows again? Oh the one that Microsoft doesn't support anymore. Sources:

http://www.directionsonmicroso...
https://support.microsoft.com/...

I guess you hope you're on Windows 7 and have the extended support. For the rest of us, we're not in the dark ages anymore. It's 2017 for crying out loud. Quirksmode vs. HTML 5, you do the math. How do you deliver a mobile experience with Quirksmode? *cough*

Then perhaps AMD, Intel, Microsoft, and Oracle need to sit down and negotiate what constitutes a core for the purpose of licensing proprietary software.

Are they making money on the XBox now? I thought that had been pushed off by all the defective units.

Shit no: the division became profitable in 2009, but:

However, it remains to be seen whether the Entertainment and Devices segment ever recoups the more than US$7 billion invested in it over the last six years.

Microsoft's entertainment division made US$426 million in 2009, so at that rate it'll only take 'em about sixteen years to pay off the investment... and that assumes they don't fuck up another console in the interim (hahaha)

True, but Microsoft supposedly has a release cycle of about 4ish years. That won't be long enough for computers to be able to play Crysis in VM, at least not at the current rate of progression. So for the next release, VM for games that have just come out and will come out in the next few years just isn't a solution.

Here's another comment on Microsoft

Fix Vista.

As I've written in another post, another team does the fixing and maintaining.

how is that possible? Vista hasn't even really hit the market yet... outside of some large businesses and anone who bought a computer recently, no one has it...

Vista RTM'd back in November 2006, and was available to TechNet subscribers and businesses later that month. After finishing coding it's not like the devs are tasked with running Vista marketing, getting the CDs pressed, and scurrying out into the world like little ants to spread Vista. No, they instead do developer work, like planning and coding for their next project. (And if you're wondering who does patches and service packs, it's a different team.)

I always wonder why Microsoft cannot afford to (or just will not) put more manpower on the job. A company like this should be able to look at security in XP and develop Vista in different teams at the same time, shouldn't it?

They do. After Windows is finished, the dev team proceeds to work on the next version, while a team called Windows Sustained Engineering takes over the released version. From the link:

Security fixes are not WSE's only concern. In fact, once a version of Windows is released to manufacturing--or declared "golden"--the product team that developed it transfers the source code to the group. WSE then has primary responsibility for any further work over the next seven years (the supported life of the product), including hotfixes, security patches, updates (critical and noncritical), security rollups, feature packs, and service packs.

... Rosoff, lead analyst at research firm Directions On Microsoft, asserts ...

I originally had no intention of looking at this article. Then I saw the above snippet in the post and felt compelled to find out what a "Directions on Microsoft" is. They have an About Us page, it turns out. Their first entry is:

Directions on Microsoft is the only INDEPENDENT organization in the world devoted exclusively to tracking Microsoft. We've studied Microsoft since 1992. Nobody knows the company better.

Our team of Microsoft experts provides clear, concise, and actionable analysis of shifts in Microsoft strategy, Microsoft product and technology roadmaps, delivery schedules, organizational changes, marketing initiatives, and licensing and other policies so you can quickly assess how they impact your business.

Thousands of companies worldwide--including corporate purchasers of Microsoft products, system integrators, software vendors, hardware manufacturers, network operators, venture capitalists, and financial analysts--trust Directions on Microsoft for accurate and unbiased Microsoft research and analysis to guide their strategic decisions.

I knew that Microsoft supported, in one way or another, a lot of organizations around the world but this takes the cake. A professional, corporate stalker? The world must be coming to an end sooner than I thought.

Compared to Vista and its high prices, draconian EULA, separate purchase required for 64-bit support...

If you think this would be so bad, why don't you mention the fact that the new MacBook Pro has a 32-bit version of OS X installed and a seperate version (Leapord) needs to be bought to have 64-bit OS X?

Ok, so it's true that they're allowing people to use Apple laptops and computers while still receiving the benefit of Microsoft's Office Suite. But let's consider that the average Apple user just plain doesn't like Windows. Sure, there's some people running both Windows and OSX in their homes right now but I'm guessing that's pretty rare. I would say these users are about as polarized as the last U.S. presidential election.

So Microsoft is still charging a lot of money for this software so it's not like they're taking a profit hit or just handing this out.

On top of that, they may be quashing any possibility of an Apple user being forced to seek alternatives. What I mean is that, without this alternative, Microsoft Office fans (who are also Apple operating system advocates) would be forced to look for an alternative. Maybe even a free open source alternative such as OpenOffice.org or selecting other free word editors?

I see this as a smart move for Microsoft in that it allows them to still maintain a dominant control on these people for publishing suites even though they might have lost them on the operating system level.

Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to compare Office on the Mac with Explorer on the Mac. There are a large amount of benefits that Microsoft Explorer gains from staying on top as the number one used browser. One of them being that Microsoft gains more clout in determining standards for webpages and the communications through the internet.

Now, back to the original article, who the hell is Directions on Microsoft? And, more importantly, what do they have to gain from authoring and publishing Microsoft's Top 10 Challenges for 2006?

If you check out their About Us page, they seem to paint themselves as a resource in understanding the greatness that is Microsoft. I know this is just speculation but I smell Microsoft cooking up a website devoted to thrusting themselves even further into the limelight (since 1992). If this site was a little less biased, I'd be inclined to enjoy it.

Ok, so it's true that they're allowing people to use Apple laptops and computers while still receiving the benefit of Microsoft's Office Suite. But let's consider that the average Apple user just plain doesn't like Windows. Sure, there's some people running both Windows and OSX in their homes right now but I'm guessing that's pretty rare. I would say these users are about as polarized as the last U.S. presidential election.

So Microsoft is still charging a lot of money for this software so it's not like they're taking a profit hit or just handing this out.

On top of that, they may be quashing any possibility of an Apple user being forced to seek alternatives. What I mean is that, without this alternative, Microsoft Office fans (who are also Apple operating system advocates) would be forced to look for an alternative. Maybe even a free open source alternative such as OpenOffice.org or selecting other free word editors?

I see this as a smart move for Microsoft in that it allows them to still maintain a dominant control on these people for publishing suites even though they might have lost them on the operating system level.

Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to compare Office on the Mac with Explorer on the Mac. There are a large amount of benefits that Microsoft Explorer gains from staying on top as the number one used browser. One of them being that Microsoft gains more clout in determining standards for webpages and the communications through the internet.

Now, back to the original article, who the hell is Directions on Microsoft? And, more importantly, what do they have to gain from authoring and publishing Microsoft's Top 10 Challenges for 2006?

If you check out their About Us page, they seem to paint themselves as a resource in understanding the greatness that is Microsoft. I know this is just speculation but I smell Microsoft cooking up a website devoted to thrusting themselves even further into the limelight (since 1992). If this site was a little less biased, I'd be inclined to enjoy it.

Ok, so it's true that they're allowing people to use Apple laptops and computers while still receiving the benefit of Microsoft's Office Suite. But let's consider that the average Apple user just plain doesn't like Windows. Sure, there's some people running both Windows and OSX in their homes right now but I'm guessing that's pretty rare. I would say these users are about as polarized as the last U.S. presidential election.

So Microsoft is still charging a lot of money for this software so it's not like they're taking a profit hit or just handing this out.

On top of that, they may be quashing any possibility of an Apple user being forced to seek alternatives. What I mean is that, without this alternative, Microsoft Office fans (who are also Apple operating system advocates) would be forced to look for an alternative. Maybe even a free open source alternative such as OpenOffice.org or selecting other free word editors?

I see this as a smart move for Microsoft in that it allows them to still maintain a dominant control on these people for publishing suites even though they might have lost them on the operating system level.

Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to compare Office on the Mac with Explorer on the Mac. There are a large amount of benefits that Microsoft Explorer gains from staying on top as the number one used browser. One of them being that Microsoft gains more clout in determining standards for webpages and the communications through the internet.

Now, back to the original article, who the hell is Directions on Microsoft? And, more importantly, what do they have to gain from authoring and publishing Microsoft's Top 10 Challenges for 2006?

If you check out their About Us page, they seem to paint themselves as a resource in understanding the greatness that is Microsoft. I know this is just speculation but I smell Microsoft cooking up a website devoted to thrusting themselves even further into the limelight (since 1992). If this site was a little less biased, I'd be inclined to enjoy it.

Interesting article ... http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/Top10Challeng esFor2004.html TOP Challenges for 2004

Microsoft's Top 10 Challenges for 2004


1. Managing a maturing company in a maturing industry

Microsoft's decision to offer a dividend is subtle recognition that the company is operating in a maturing industry where both hardware and software upgrade cycles are lengthening and growth rates slowing. It has become harder and harder for Microsoft to introduce updates that offer compelling new value and customers perceive many older products such as Office 97 as simply "good enough." At the same time, customers are more reliant on Microsoft software than ever before--so reliant that a software failure such as a rampant virus infection can have a greater business impact than an extended power outage or a loss of telephone service. Customers are placing a greater value on making sure systems they already have run reliably, and less value on new products and capabilities.

Microsoft's challenge is to adopt business models and business processes that reflect these realities. However, despite all the signs of a maturing marketplace, "Microsoft still has the same basic business model as it did in the 1990's--a model that is largely predicated on creating software grand slams that compel customers to upgrade." says Paul DeGroot, Lead Analyst, Sales & Support Strategies at Directions on Microsoft. That is the reason why so much more development resources are being poured into Windows Longhorn compared to service packs for existing products such as Windows XP and Windows 2003--efforts that are arguably more in demand by customers than Longhorn. "With the largest installed base of any software company, Microsoft is in an enviable position. But, short of selling customers on product upgrades, Microsoft hasn't found an effective way to convert that huge installed base advantage into a steady revenue stream," explains DeGroot.

2. Security, Security, Security New security vulnerabilities in Microsoft products are discovered on regular basis, and thwarting hackers requires customers to evaluate, download, deploy, and install a steady stream of software patches--a complex and time-consuming process. And, by the admission of Microsoft CFO John Connors in the most recent quarterly earnings report, security issues are hurting Microsoft's bottom line by redirecting IT resources that might otherwise be spent on evaluating and deploying the latest generation of Microsoft products and technologies.

Currently, Microsoft's patch-management technologies and processes are themselves a patchwork. For example, various product groups use different patch formats and installers, and patch test and release processes differ across groups. The result? The presence of some patches can be reliable detected, others cannot; some patches can be uninstalled, others can't; some patches require reboot, others don't; Windows patches are available from one site, Office patches from another; and some patches subsequently require patches themselves, revealing inadequate testing. Furthermore, many of the company's patch update technologies don't work well for the many consumers on dial-up connections, who simply don't have sufficient bandwidth to download megabytes and megabytes worth of patches.

Significant progress has been made in 2003 and the company has made a strong commitment to improve the security situation in 2004. "Microsoft knows exactly what it needs to do to improve the security of its products. The main challenge is one of discipline--enforcing a consistent set of patch technologies and procedures across traditionally independent product groups," said Michael Cherry, Lead Analyst, Operating Systems at Directions on Microsoft.

etc...(see rest of article)

"Microsoft has always played an interesting game when it comes to standards," he said. "They're going to support them as necessary to get technology broadly adopted. But at the same time, they're an (intellectual property) company. That's the case with any big business."

I would have agreed, if after broadly adopted he would have said "they stop playing according to the standard and thereby break compatibility with other software". If you're an analyst on Microsoft, you should know what embrace and extend is, and I think he should have mentioned it here. That is, unless he's partial to Microsoft, which the company claims it isn't.

windows development timeline

Windows 2000: 42 months - a little less than four years

Software Update Services. It is Microsoft's free solution for managing the installation of critical updates across a network. As I understand it, you are basically running your own mini Windows Update service to which your clients subscribe. You can download updates on the server and roll them out if and when you want to. I think it has reasonably good scheduling features. All the Windows Update clients need to be updated to a new version, but I think this was already been sent out in older service packs.

Caveats:

Requires Windows 2000/2003 Server (for the server)

Only updates Windows 2000/XP/2003 (Professional or higher?)

Until recently (SUS sp1), you could not install the SUS server on a domain controller.

I think it only installs critical updates, not recommended updates, and not 3rd party software... so (tear, sniffle) no euro conversion tool.

Other than that, I don't know a lot about it either... but I did very recently start a job where I desperately need to deploy something like this. There's a lot of questions I have like how do you ensure the clients actually update? Is there any reporting? Are the updates pushed or pulled? Does anyone have any SUS stories good or bad?

More info

Server Download Page

Random dated article found on google.

Microsoft announced that they were scrapping / postponing this due to a lack of interest from customers. Basically, people thought (correctly) that it was a stupid idea. A few years back, Microsoft tried selling Office as an online ASP Service over the web. It was a stupid idea and no one used it. Clearly they saw this was going to be the same thing.

None of this is exactly a Red Herring -- Microsoft follows a pattern of announcing some far reaching plan, then seeing who responds / complains and then adjusting / cancelling before they actually make any concrete plans (or most likely write a line of code).

directions on microsoft Check out that link, it is run by I think two former Microsoft employees.