Vista was quite nice with updated drivers and machines with enough hardware. You advised your customers wrongly. That being said, so what. Microsoft advised them to upgrade. If they ignored Microsoft's advice then, that isn't a point in their favor now.
Anyone who can use a homebrew an OS will be fine with UEFI. That group of customers has nothing to worry about. As far as FOSS users, there will FOSS systems that will install easily on UEFI. Microsoft is working with several of them quite openly to insure that.
During that period of time Microsoft was establishing their server products as business standards. They were winning the battle for the business server market. They also were fighting off the Sun / Oracle Java initiative and had to bring out the entire transition to.NET. Longhorn took longer than expected, but mainly they didn't want to risk a major migration of the enterprise desktop when the move to Server/Java based systems was still viable.
Reread your post. It basically says that Microsoft would be better with a model where people don't pay them than one where they do. How is that better for Microsoft?
As for Why does there need to be a monolithic operating system will all the bundled crap on it?
Because they have an entire ecosystem. And the level of technology that existed in 2000 is not the level of technology that is available today. They believe, rightly, that customers would be better served by more advanced features and higher levels of integration.
Not long. Part of the clearly stated goal of Windows 8 shift is to get away from the Win32 / COM stuff and force updates to older.NET stuff. Assuming they stay on track the "upgrade treadmill" will be getting much faster, more like Apple. Since the change to.NET Microsoft has been looking for ways to decrease their compatibility burdons / legacy with fragmenting their platform. So far they've leaned towards being cautious. Today they don't think they have that luxury anymore and need to move faster.
They've been for a decade indicating they intend to EOL it. The dates have been out there for years. They aren't making money on old XP licenses. So when they stop supporting it, they just stop.
I agree. But this was the argument 15 years against tying these systems to Windows. Microsoft has never indicated any desire or willingness to be in the permanent or very long term support model. They've been quite generous in slowing down from what they were in the 1980s. Today they are indicating a desire to move more quickly.
On the other hand there are and have been OSes that do have a track record of very long term support. For example IBM's AIX has been supported through all these years.
Most of that proprietary IE stuff was added to IE 4 and 4.5. Microsoft never intended for people to running the same code for 2 decades. They don't sell mainframes.
Microsoft Windows Vista was released Jan 2007. There were preview versions for businesses available starting early 2006. Microsoft was urging business to upgrade hardware, then. They've been advertising their EOL dates for a decade and have extended them.
As the saying goes, "A failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part". I think Microsoft has been excessively generous in allowing companies plenty of time. If you want extra Windows 7 licenses Microsoft will be happy to sell them to you today.
I'd say desktop operating systems on Windows are stagnant not mature. You just have to look at the feature set in Window 8, or OSX to see the difference. Where in XP is the fully integrated data configuration library that syncs between application data and removes the entire paradigm of save? I.E. Auto Save + core data?
MS should be forced to support all the software they've been paid for that's still in use.
Why? Why would we want to create a situation where software has to be so expensive as to fund a development team indefinitely for sale?
Even if it were free, I don't see the advantage is allowing technological stagnation. GM isn't paying for the replacement on your '57 Chevy. If you mean some sort of high priced legacy support, companies like IBM offer that on, Microsoft never promised anything of the kind. Frankly Microsoft by supporting their OSes for so long has created the belief in their customers that they are entitled to support. Microsoft should have an n-2 rule like Apple. The day Win 7 ship, XP is unsupported. n - 3 is very generous.
Again the context here was about Microsoft causing confusion.
In terms of your analysis, a new topic.... I agree with you. Apple's current direction is advanced amateur not professional. FCPX = iMovie Advanced Aperture = iPhoto Advanced Logic = Garage Band Advanced etc...
I see Apple's "professional" applications as playing the same role to iLife that as the Microsoft Office Microsoft Works did for consumers. I suspect eventually, you'll have a whole generation of people that know the iLife suite and so easily up to these more advanced tools. The professional tools will be highly specialized and niche. Moreover, I see this "iLife advanced" as future killer apps for the OSX platform.
This is a very different strategy than when Apple originally brought these applications out, where they were to be niche so as to attract power users to their platform.
Its a bit odd I'm finding data all over the place. Like the BLS lists average mine worker salary (which would include things like office staff) at $18 / hr. News reports average salaries are much higher. The average starting salary for a coal mine worker is $60,000, for example.
Payscale lists it at 77,277 with associates 54,500 with HS.
So pfff I don't know which one of is right, data is totally contradictory.
As for an honest 8 hr workday with a low cost of living, sounds nice.
1) There really never was a fully developed business phone market. RIM didn't offer enough consulting services so business phones never got deeply integrated. For example their MVS product which gives mobiles PBX functionality is fantastic. But most business don't even know about their PBX functionality.
RIM missed their chance to deeply integrate, the way Microsoft took their desktop platform and built a server platform.
2) The move from EVDO to 3G is responsible for a lot of what you are talking about. Many of blackberries features like compressed email are great for EVDO but don't matter on 3G. There certainly would be a market for high speed compressed video services over 3G/4G but those are different customers that RIMs.
3) Carriers are not anxious to offer less expensive plans with limited data for business only uses. If say 100m of data was $3 extra per month while 2g / of data was $30/mo extra, business would be much more concerned with limiting data. Since carriers aren't doing that business have no reason to want a more limited experience.
____
IMHO I think Nokia / Microsoft offers the best chance for a good business phone. Google's business model makes them a terrible choice for enterprise. Apple's culture makes them a terrible choice for enterprise. Ubiquitous computing, the Windows 8 strategy does strike me as something business might love. Microsoft has a strong hold on enterprise and Nokia needs a market.
I wouldn't say the Lumia 920 is a business phone. But... Microsoft Lynx is excellent. If Microsoft would just bundle Lynx service for free with Lumia that would make it a good choice for small business and possibly BYOD companies. Which gets it off the ground for enterprise which...
Its not like the Department of Justice doesn't have to deal with people trying to hide their identity. They are setup for those sorts of investigations. interstate bank robbery chains, or kidnappers aren't anxious for their identify to be discovered either.
So people company X hires people to make robocalls pretending to be Y. Y makes a credible claim of "wasn't me" the DoJ gets involved. Someone from the robocalling agency gets caught with cocaine and wants to make a deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Vista was quite nice with updated drivers and machines with enough hardware. You advised your customers wrongly. That being said, so what. Microsoft advised them to upgrade. If they ignored Microsoft's advice then, that isn't a point in their favor now.
Anyone who can use a homebrew an OS will be fine with UEFI. That group of customers has nothing to worry about. As far as FOSS users, there will FOSS systems that will install easily on UEFI. Microsoft is working with several of them quite openly to insure that.
During that period of time Microsoft was establishing their server products as business standards. They were winning the battle for the business server market. They also were fighting off the Sun / Oracle Java initiative and had to bring out the entire transition to .NET. Longhorn took longer than expected, but mainly they didn't want to risk a major migration of the enterprise desktop when the move to Server /Java based systems was still viable.
Reread your post. It basically says that Microsoft would be better with a model where people don't pay them than one where they do. How is that better for Microsoft?
As for
Why does there need to be a monolithic operating system will all the bundled crap on it?
Because they have an entire ecosystem. And the level of technology that existed in 2000 is not the level of technology that is available today. They believe, rightly, that customers would be better served by more advanced features and higher levels of integration.
with which not even Microsoft can fuck.
Of course they can, they own the copyright. That being said they are unlikely too. But don't confuse can't with won't.
Not long. Part of the clearly stated goal of Windows 8 shift is to get away from the Win32 / COM stuff and force updates to older .NET stuff. Assuming they stay on track the "upgrade treadmill" will be getting much faster, more like Apple. Since the change to .NET Microsoft has been looking for ways to decrease their compatibility burdons / legacy with fragmenting their platform. So far they've leaned towards being cautious. Today they don't think they have that luxury anymore and need to move faster.
How will they be forced to keep updating it?
They've been for a decade indicating they intend to EOL it. The dates have been out there for years. They aren't making money on old XP licenses. So when they stop supporting it, they just stop.
Windows 7 runs XP as a guest OS.
I agree. But this was the argument 15 years against tying these systems to Windows. Microsoft has never indicated any desire or willingness to be in the permanent or very long term support model. They've been quite generous in slowing down from what they were in the 1980s. Today they are indicating a desire to move more quickly.
On the other hand there are and have been OSes that do have a track record of very long term support. For example IBM's AIX has been supported through all these years.
Yeah that'll work suing a several hundred billion dollar company with a first rate legal department that is not lawsuit adverse.
Run XP as a guest operating system on a Windows 8 hypervisor. Win 7 for example shipped with virtual XP for exactly this sort of situation.
Most of that proprietary IE stuff was added to IE 4 and 4.5. Microsoft never intended for people to running the same code for 2 decades. They don't sell mainframes.
Microsoft Windows Vista was released Jan 2007. There were preview versions for businesses available starting early 2006. Microsoft was urging business to upgrade hardware, then. They've been advertising their EOL dates for a decade and have extended them.
As the saying goes, "A failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part". I think Microsoft has been excessively generous in allowing companies plenty of time. If you want extra Windows 7 licenses Microsoft will be happy to sell them to you today.
I'd say desktop operating systems on Windows are stagnant not mature. You just have to look at the feature set in Window 8, or OSX to see the difference. Where in XP is the fully integrated data configuration library that syncs between application data and removes the entire paradigm of save? I.E. Auto Save + core data?
Talk to Microsoft. Pay for a large support team and I'm sure they'll be happy to keep supporting you. But it ain't gonna but $100 per.
Well if we are going to use that analogy.
You can free feel free to use another kernel and have programs link against the XP DLLs long after Microsoft stops support XP.
MS should be forced to support all the software they've been paid for that's still in use.
Why? Why would we want to create a situation where software has to be so expensive as to fund a development team indefinitely for sale?
Even if it were free, I don't see the advantage is allowing technological stagnation. GM isn't paying for the replacement on your '57 Chevy. If you mean some sort of high priced legacy support, companies like IBM offer that on, Microsoft never promised anything of the kind. Frankly Microsoft by supporting their OSes for so long has created the belief in their customers that they are entitled to support. Microsoft should have an n-2 rule like Apple. The day Win 7 ship, XP is unsupported. n - 3 is very generous.
Trying to Make Vista (Longhorn) a super mega OS, where they just couldn't do it, taking time away from smaller improvements.
They could have. Aero was obviously in Vista. WinFS ended up in SQLServer. Palladium wasn't technically difficult, just politically difficult.
They chickened out.
As for a lost decade. Take a look at Microsoft's server / business offering today vs. a decade ago. That's where they spent the effort.
Huh? Who lost 45% market share? What are you talking about?
Makes sense. I know there are some high durability dumb phones that don't have cameras but yeah I gotta admit that is a good use case for BB.
Again the context here was about Microsoft causing confusion.
In terms of your analysis, a new topic.... I agree with you. Apple's current direction is advanced amateur not professional.
FCPX = iMovie Advanced
Aperture = iPhoto Advanced
Logic = Garage Band Advanced
etc...
I see Apple's "professional" applications as playing the same role to iLife that as the Microsoft Office Microsoft Works did for consumers. I suspect eventually, you'll have a whole generation of people that know the iLife suite and so easily up to these more advanced tools. The professional tools will be highly specialized and niche. Moreover, I see this "iLife advanced" as future killer apps for the OSX platform.
This is a very different strategy than when Apple originally brought these applications out, where they were to be niche so as to attract power users to their platform.
Oh I see. Yes that's a problem. And since it has a front facing camera as well, you couldn't even just use a case that covers the entire rear.
Thanks for the correction.
Its a bit odd I'm finding data all over the place. Like the BLS lists average mine worker salary (which would include things like office staff) at $18 / hr. News reports average salaries are much higher. The average starting salary for a coal mine worker is $60,000, for example.
Payscale lists it at 77,277 with associates
54,500 with HS.
So pfff I don't know which one of is right, data is totally contradictory.
As for an honest 8 hr workday with a low cost of living, sounds nice.
The way I see it.
1) There really never was a fully developed business phone market. RIM didn't offer enough consulting services so business phones never got deeply integrated. For example their MVS product which gives mobiles PBX functionality is fantastic. But most business don't even know about their PBX functionality.
RIM missed their chance to deeply integrate, the way Microsoft took their desktop platform and built a server platform.
2) The move from EVDO to 3G is responsible for a lot of what you are talking about. Many of blackberries features like compressed email are great for EVDO but don't matter on 3G. There certainly would be a market for high speed compressed video services over 3G/4G but those are different customers that RIMs.
3) Carriers are not anxious to offer less expensive plans with limited data for business only uses. If say 100m of data was $3 extra per month while 2g / of data was $30 /mo extra, business would be much more concerned with limiting data. Since carriers aren't doing that business have no reason to want a more limited experience.
____
IMHO I think Nokia / Microsoft offers the best chance for a good business phone. Google's business model makes them a terrible choice for enterprise. Apple's culture makes them a terrible choice for enterprise. Ubiquitous computing, the Windows 8 strategy does strike me as something business might love. Microsoft has a strong hold on enterprise and Nokia needs a market.
I wouldn't say the Lumia 920 is a business phone. But... Microsoft Lynx is excellent. If Microsoft would just bundle Lynx service for free with Lumia that would make it a good choice for small business and possibly BYOD companies. Which gets it off the ground for enterprise which...
Its not like the Department of Justice doesn't have to deal with people trying to hide their identity. They are setup for those sorts of investigations. interstate bank robbery chains, or kidnappers aren't anxious for their identify to be discovered either.
So people company X hires people to make robocalls pretending to be Y. Y makes a credible claim of "wasn't me" the DoJ gets involved. Someone from the robocalling agency gets caught with cocaine and wants to make a deal.