Slashdot Mirror
Five Ways Microsoft Could Change After Gates
Might Squirrel noted a perfectly mediocre story to chat about on a boring post-holiday weekend Monday. This one is a look at 5 ways Microsoft could change after Gates. From accepting Open Source to serious interoperability work, there are definitely 5 things on that list there. Nothing about my solid gold rocket car.
They could design a whole new OS from the ground up, abandoning much of the legacy code in Windows that makes it a bit flaky and adopting the "Ã la carte" modular design. They could even make it more secure. But that would risk alienating a huge chunk of traditional Windows users (who still want their old stuff to work, will be confused by a modular design, and who *hate* security popups asking for a password every time they install something). It would be a major risk to the dominance of one of their two big cash cows and could open the door for Apple to swoop in for some market share.
They could fully embrace open source. But that means risking the dominance of Office--their other cash cow. And they're not going to do that.
Basically, I don't expect them to change much at all in the post-Gates era. They may embark on some new initiatives and head in some new directions. And I do expect they will be a LOT more internet-oriented in the future. But they're not going to change their fundamental business model, or abandon their core apps to some radical new ideology.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
... is to rename themselves TriOptimum.
1. It could get much worse
2. It could get worse
3. It could stay the same
4. It could get better
5. It could get much better
We all know that this is not in line with M$. It's more likely that they'll try to find new ways of fighting it. Unfortunately they will probably succeed quite well too.
From Microsoft's attempts at documenting their file formats and interfaces I can say that Microsoft does not work to specifications or standards. They make the code work then make the working code the standard. That is bad practice and leads to, as all can see, bloated, undocumented and overly large interfaces.
I believe the biggest change for Microsoft, whether or not they embrace openness, is to work to a specification driven development rather than a code driven development system. Spend the timing working on the specification and interfaces, get a workable interface and security model then implement it.
So Slashdot is now posting 'perfectly mediocre' stories? Come back Roland, all is forgiven.
Without Gates Microsoft runs the risk of becoming a faceless super-corporation focusing on sales rather than developing the tech that could give the company an edge.
Runs the risk? Isn't this what Microsoft is now?
And kill linux and OSX at the same time...
Yeah, it seems Taco is having a bit of an identity crisis. Either that, or he's just grumpy about having to work at such an ungodly early hour.
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
#1:
Yes, Gates has been an opponent of Free Software ever since his famous first letter. However, he's not been as vocal regarding Open Source Software, and that's where it's our loss that we forgot about the difference between them. MS has made some early attempts with "shared source", and like other stuff, they'll refine it.
#2:
Nonsense. That's got absolutely nothing to do with Gates, and everything with the fact that MS simply can't write another windos. After the entire NT team packed up and left, it's been going downhill, and one of the reasons Vista sucks so much is that they shipped something that nobody in the company understood how it worked. If you thought Vista was a trainwreck, wait for Win7.
#3:
What this shows even more is how MS works. Despite their total lack of experience and ability, they enter the game like they own it, and get a bloody nose. But they come back - and get another beating. Just that they keep coming back. You can see that modus operandi in almost every area. Hardware, consoles, much of their non-core software. Usually, it doesn't matter much because they don't learn and keep on sucking, but sometimes along the way they get some wits, or acquire another company, and suddenly they matter (e.g. hardware) or the market is just so small that by sheer power they force their way in (e.g. consoles).
#4:
Pfft. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years or so, you know that MS announcement regarding ODF is simply the opening stage of EEE. MS has replaced the "then you win" step of the "first they laugh at you..." thing with "then they embrace you, extend you, extinguish you", and fairly successfully at that. With MS as you enemy you don't win when they give up the fight. That's just their way of saying "ok, the cheap and easy way didn't work, we'll have to take you down the old way".
#5:
Yes, maybe. The only point that holds some merit, and even includes both sides of the story. Personally, I think MS will break apart. It'll be a long time, but a disorganized, never-grown-up company like MS simply needs a strong man to hold it together, and for all I know, the ape simply won't do.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"are you sure you want to change Microsoft?" (confirm) (cancel)
"are you really sure you want to change Microsoft? Like sure, sure?"
(confirm) (cancel)
"performing this action can be dangerous, are you sure?"
(confirm) (cancel)
"ok really this time...
Maybe Microsoft will change for the better after Ballmer leaves. But not while he's in charge. At least, that's what I think.
Would be for microsoft to simply go away.
Really? And what would you replace them with? An Apple Monopoly? an IBM one? Linux?
Notice how many Linux distro's are being sponsored by big companies these days? Ok, this is a good thing as part of an active OS ecosystem, but name one you'd happily hand a majority share of the OS market to.
Microsoft can't be excised from the IT world. If they, for the sake of argument, collapsed next week, there would be a worldwide IT company crash of epic proportions. We would all suffer.
Like it or not, we need them to stick around. In order to survive they will have to evolve as a company, just like IBM did. I hope they do, as much as I like Linux (and I do, a lot), I wouldn't like it if that was all there was aside from Apple's OS.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I hope that nothing changes. That way, people will continue to pour over to Ubuntu. More people using Ubuntu will mean more apps written for Linux. Everybody (for values of everybody outside Redmond) wins.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
and as we know from history of extinct species, those who could not adapt and change died out and made way for the ones that could.
And the reason Microsoft can't change is because they are catering now to huge bureaucratic corporations (think insurance companies, banks, etc, some of whom are still running Windows NT 4.0), and these are not exactly at the forefront of technological adoption let alone innovation. I.e. they cater to a market that doesn't like change.
If Microsoft decided to do an "apple" and ditch Win32 for solid proven UNIX kernel and build their own APIs around that, these businesses would be creaming bloody murder and literary make Microsoft support their old crud.
Now this could be done through VM these days (but then again most of businesses don't have powerful machines for their users), or perhaps MS could split consumer and business OS further, since consumers are more likely to follow latest trends.
But all this seems to iffy and risky decision for Microsoft to make. So I don't expect any change from them.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
I guess the approach to this depends on your medium-term strategy. If you are concerned that Linux and OS X market share is likely to increase significantly based on current trends, and you acknowledge that Vista has been a failure in the market but there is still a lot of demand for XP today, then this indicates a need to move in a different direction where you can compete effectively with Linux and OS X a few years down the line but no desperate need to shift dramatically in the near future.
If you assume that the thing most holding back Linux and OS X today is application (including driver) support, and you acknowledge that this is the major technical reason people are still using Windows, then from the previous assumptions you must expect software companies to focus more on portability and use of cross-platform libraries in future as the target markets using alternative operating systems grow. However, you can use this to your advantage, because it means if your new direction plays nicely, it will continue to be at least as attractive for software developers to support your platform as any of your rivals when they go cross-platform.
If you look at the major competition in Linux and OS X, both are based on decades-old concepts that are tried and tested, but also aren't particularly well suited to current trends in networked access, mobile devices, and the like. This creates an opportunity for your new direction to provide genuine improvements for the users while learning from the successful ideas that have gone before, and thus to make your new platform the more attractive one.
And here's the kicker. If you're Microsoft, you are one of the few companies on the planet that has sufficient development resources, financial reserves and attention from software developers to have a credible shot at this. But you need to be honest about the situation, and make a few hard choices about who you're going to put in charge, since your problem is not your generally very smart technical people or your generally very effective marketing people, it's your generally missing the point management people.
I don't really expect them to do this, because I don't think they have the guts to bet the house on such a big move. But I honestly believe their best strategy in the market today is to sit in a holding pattern on the XP/Vista line for the near future (when neither Linux nor OS X is a serious threat to their dominance), aim to have a serious alternative a few years down the line that can compete on merit in a market where one-OS software is increasingly rare and the threats from alternative platforms like Linux, OS X, and whatever new trends emerge in web-based and mobile computing are growing. Along the way, they could move towards open standards and continue their strategy of basically giving away powerful development tools that support their platform, which would undermine some of the key selling points of the opposition, and continue to support the company via sales and incremental improvements to XP and Office for the immediate future.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Huh?
There have been a number of open source projects over the years that have been kept under the control of a single source (by dual licensing, for example), and others that have ignored, ridden down, and flagrantly broken standards. There's been at least two high profile projects that have deliberately used embrace-end-extend to knock competing software (including other open source projects) out of the ring. Open source is not the same as open standards... hell, the software that really started the whole open systems movement in the '70s didn't have a good open source implementation until the '90s.
Both open source and open standards are important, vitally important, but they are not the same thing and mixing up the two just muddies the water and hurts both movements.
Without Gates Microsoft runs the risk of becoming a faceless super-corporation focusing on sales rather than developing the tech that could give the company an edge.
But, Doctor Evil, that already happened.
Microsoft has not made any fundamental improvements to Windows since Windows 2000, and I'd have to look back even further than that to find any major improvements to Office.
No, that is ridiculous. MacOSX kept a lot of compatibility with its BSD base and emulated MacOS9. The transition period was huge, and it was starting from scratch. Microsoft will not have the same opportunity, and it will lose a lot of market share.
The best Microsoft could do is something similar, rebasing on BSD and making a compatibility layer, but with almost every non-trivial Windows application hooking itself into the kernel and services and everywhere, that will NOT work for most of what ties people to Windows anyway.
Sam ty sig.
There are another issue that I think is being overlooked is the 64-bit issue. This also adds to be backwards compatibility issues. Here's the way I understand it: The LP64 model (used by Linux and Unix) redefines long (32-bit) to 64-bit. The model MS chose is the LLP64 model which introduces a new integer type called long long which is 64bit. The effect of this is that a 32bit MS program will work in a 64bit Windows, but a 64bit MS program will not work in 32bit Windows. So companies who want to take advantage of 64bit Windows will have to develop 2 different versions of the same software. This hinders some companies from moving forward to 64 bit. In the LP64 model, a company would have to compile 32bit and 64bit versions but their code can be the same.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If Taco is that pissed off about doing Slashdot these days then why doesn't he step down so he can go run his multi-billion dollar charity organization?