Microsoft Research Turns 10

Alec Muzzy writes: "Did you know that Microsoft Research, the first research laboratory started by a software company, just turned 10 years old? Their website is currently featuring some highlights of their research in the past 10 years and how it is applying to the new products Microsoft is making today - for instance their work in Real-Time Fur will be used in some XBox games, and Speech Recognition may be in future Pocket PC's. Reading these pages gives you a real insight into what new technologies Microsoft is working on."

Comments

Huh?

[SaturnTim]

I thought Apple was much older than 10 years...

;)

--T

peachy on the surface...

[turbine216]

...but deadly underneath...

Notice that no mention is made of Microsoft's "Black Ops" division (often referred to as "R&D"), whose current research documents include "Mind Control using pre-packaged Windows Sound Schemes" and "The Manchurian Candidate and You: What it All Means."

Average Slashdotter's Gut Reaction

[grammar fascist]

Microsoft is evil! Boycott fur!

Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Real Time Fur?? How about Real Time Stability?

Microsoft innovation

[Outlet of Me]

Now as much as everybody would like to deny that Microsoft has come up with anything new and original, you have to give them this:

All of their research on the blue screen of death has paid off. And they obviously know how to allocate their resources, devoting the most effort to the feature that gets seen most often.

Why research?

[Webmoth]

Wasn't Linux developed just over 10 years ago?

The earliest datestamp in kernel 0.0 is 15 Jun 1991 at 1:54 pm (memory.h).

No wonder Microsoft decided they needed a research department.

And don't forget...

[The Slashdolt]

Microsoft's research into hydroponics. It's the only explanation for this.

10 Years of Microsoft Research Summed Up

[ackthpt]

"Hey, look what those guys are doing!"

Notable

[MaxwellsSilverHammer]

The really interesting and innovative aspect of Microsoft's research dept. is that it is staffed entirely by attorneys expert in contract law. The fields of contract law and license agreements have advanced so much by Ms' innovations in these areas. People don't give them enough credit here I think.

In other news...

[jayhawk88]

Microsoft Research Turns 10

Military Intelligence, Honest Politicians, Professional Wrestling, and Sexy Geek are also celebrating birthdays later this month.

Re:Did you bother checking the MSR page?

[MagikSlinger]

Most people who have worked on both research and real world development can tell you that there are always trade-offs to make between what works under limited conditions in a lab and what works in a production system with dozens of variables.

Sarcasm On.You're right. I mean, it's too bad we can't mass produce microelectronics because when they were first invented, they could only be reliably produced in a special lab. Or transisotrs. The first transistors were notoriously expensive because they could only be produced in research laboratories. It's too bad they never figured out how to mass produce them.Sarcasm Off

Industry usually finds a way to make lab research as useful, or more so, in the real world. Microsoft does not seem to be willing to invest in the discipline, like the physical sciences did, to take lab discoveries and put them into production. Microsoft is a sloppy organization that only knows how to steal and copy. Innovation is not their strong suit.

Hypothetically, what if the Paperclip algorithm developed by the researchers actually were pretty smart at learning and predicting the user's behavior but would either eat up too much RAM or take up too much time do perform their predictions?

You mean like Office 97? :-)

Your arguing with a straw man. Office 97 is freaking huge, and as others pointed out, the original algorithm could run fine w/ office. The reason Paperclip got lobotomized is because of Marketing. They turned a potentially cool and useful feature into an annoying joke.

In my original article, I said the internal culture of MS prevents them from innovating in useful ways; instead, they create annoying gimmicks. Read Debugging the Development Process for an inside view of how MS's internal culture works against them.

As for those who loved to point me to the Research page and say, "Lookee! They're innovating in those areas!" No, they're not, and what they are working on will never go into a MS Product. My point was MS Research is suffering the same fate of Xerox PARC: they maybe doing cool stuff, but they're constantly being distracted from it. Their parent company's internal culture prevents them from seeing where true innovation lies and what is really important from a technical point of view.

That's why I find Microsoft's arguments against breakup or restraining orders so nauseating. If they really did innovate, I wouldn't dislike them so much.