Brian Valentine is probably one of the better VP's at Microsoft. Before Windows, he was heading up the Exchange group and brought them from 20-person MS Mail "start up" to a 100M+ deployed seats messaging juggernaut. Like it or not, in the recent "Can we ditch Exchange" thread, a lot of people admitted that it's a darn good enterpise solution.
Because of his success at Exchange, BrianV was pretty much told to take reigns of Windows to make Win2K happen. Or so the Microsoft urban legend goes.
I will undoubtedly be flamed for it, but I fail to see how Apple isn't a monopoly on Apple hardware. If a 3rd party developer writes exclusively for Mac platform, and Apple comes out with a bundled, "free" version of the same app, how would that not put the competitor out of business?
What would be the advantage of writing PS2 Linux game vs. a DirectX or OpenGL PC game as far as your hiring decision is concerned?
Just curious...
Wonder why they didn't wait for XP Tablet edition
on
Pacebook Tablet PC
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am curious why they decided to ship on top of Windows XP Home and rely on Office XP for handwriting recognition instead of waiting another few months for the release of Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (there's a mouthful).
I attended a presentation on the Microsoft TabletPC's a few months back and the handwriting recognition in the OS was by far the most accurate I had seen to date on CE or Palm devices. On top of that, with the WinXP TPCE, the handwriting recognition support is exposed via a set of APIs and could be bolted onto any existing app. Not sure what the pricing for new OS will be, but it seems like a much better way to go than taking dependency on Office and after $400 still not being able to use pen input in other apps.
Ran strings on winsock.dll that comes in WinXP Professional.
Only one string referring to BSD popped up: "BSD Socket API for Windows"
Now, how precisely does this imply use of actual BSD source code? Especially considering that the following website states the above string is a description of the DLL from Win 3.1 days.
To me that reads as "Microsoft implementation of BSD API" with the qualifier "for Windows"
I'm not defending Microsoft and I'll admit that while I use their products I have quite a few gripes about the general state of Windows.
However, much like you I too have just recently made a transition from idialistic world of CS to the real world of software industry. I'd like to present a different take on situation if you'll bear with me, one offered without wearing the pink-engineering-my-product-must-be-perfection-ise lf glasses.
Over the years Microsoft has built up Windows into a commodity product (no glib remarks about marketing, please). The truth is, when the user buys a computer, I'm talking about an end-user purchasing a desktop system and not a server, they are purchasing an experience. The ability to write letters, check e-mail, listen to music, make home videos. How the machine helps them achieve these tasks is irrelevant. Right now, Windows plus some office suite (Works or Office) cover 90% of everything majority of users wish to do on their machine.
Now let's take a look at the OEMs. They ship machines with 90% of MS software, and while the OEM is responsible for the support of the system, they know that by having an all-Microsoft cast on the system they are assured interoperability. The OEM, thus, is not in the business of working the kinks out of their particular "distribution" of "computer usage experience". While the users may think of buying a "Dell" or "Gateway", who do they bash when their machines become finicky? Why Microsoft of course. There's a single point of blame in the industry.
If Windows on the desktop were to become modular, someone will have to pick up the resonsibility for ensuring consistent user experience and compatibility of middleware. Since modularizing Windows would mainly benefit vendors and through them users, it seems obvious that it is the OEM that should be assigned with such responsibility. Would Dell and Gateway really accept a new paragraph in their job description with profit margin being as thin as they are now? Call me a cynic, but I think in the end Microsoft will be stuck with this job. Moreover, the stigma of "I bought a Dell but it's Microsoft I blame" will hardly go away immediately once modularized Windows with 3-rd party middleware systems start shipping.
So in the end Microsoft ends up with extra chores, which IMHO are not their concern, even as a punishment, dilution of their brand image by products that are out of their influence (and they truly are, as any attempt to bring misbehaving 3-rd party vendor would surely be interpreted as anti-trust violation). No surprise they are opposed to this particular remedy, monopoly non-withstanding.
Erm... Why would Microsoft be upset by this? If the user has paid for their copy of Office they still get their money. If it's being pirated, then it's no different than if it was pirated on the Windows box.
Sure they'll lose out on some converts for whom the only block for going to Linux was Office. However, Microsoft does gain a new platform on which their software runs and which they don't have to officially support.
The Phillips device is an implementation of Mira spec, not an "invention". There was a CNet article a few days ago about Mira devices presented at CeBit this year.
Re:There is a "signed installation" system out the
on
Fair Software Installation
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Microsoft outlines policies for "well behaved" installations in Windows Logo Policies - Overview for Software. This is similar (but not exactly like) to WHQL certification for hardware.
They're not expensive tastes. Just some of the software that's top-rated by Tucows. The browser pricing btw, is based on Netscape's license circa '97. If I remember correctly.
BeOS included a built-in browser at a cost of $0
OS/2 Warp included a built-in browser at a cost of $0
Netscape used its other revenue streams to fund Netscape distribution for free to educational institutions and individual users
So what has Microsoft done differently by including IE in Windows?
"Among the illegal tactics cited by the court was the "commingling" of Windows source code with add-on middleware.
I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end.
Currently the home OS ships for $100 and comes with a good browser, decent/basic archiver, basic CD burner and a bunch of other utilities that are "good enough" for 90% of the users. Is this unfair to other vendors that make more robust version of these utilities commercially? Perhaps...
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Suddenly the TCO of the system is going up at a prohibitive rate. Software isn't cheap, if you actually bother to license everything you use at home. Do we expect users, who don't bother now to research alternative options to Windows software, to make rational, cost-effective decisions about purchasing add-ons for their OS? Or do we expect middleware vendors to drop their prices once the competition ball is in their court? I don't see how the consumer's wallet will benefit from all this litigation in the end.
Let's see... The top 3 spots are SQL 2000 running on Windows 2000 clusters.
Of course, if that's too "cheap" for you, you can spend an additional $2M for a "high-end" runner-up Fujitsu machine that will give you approx 60% performace (455K tpmC vs. 709K tpmC) of the Windows/SQL 2000 solution.
Re:What's most important:
on
Wired Talks Wine
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A guy I work with has an ex-Microsoft buddy who, since cashing out rich, has turned his attention to the Open Source community.
A few years back he had a, what seemed to everyone, brilliant idea. He wanted to start a company that would provide matchmaking services between companies needing Open Source coding work done and programmers willing to put time into such projects. The theory was that if 10,000 people wanted a replacement for Photoshop, they'd pool $100 into a bank fund that would later pay for 2 yrs of someone's full-time work.
It all *horribly* flopped. What this gentlemen found out whas that no one wanted to pay for an open source project. There were thousands of developers signing up for his service, some even with already planned apps. Except the user-end of the community didn't want to pony up, not even a nickel. They all wanted it free. Similar situation as with Loki.
Also, consider that 1 million dollars won't buy you 10 developers for 2 years. More realistically, $1M will get you a team of 5 devs (5 x $80K) and 10 testers (10 x $60K) for one year. $1M is peanuts in this industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake
Redhad
OpenOffice
Apache
StarOffice
How about these fine competing products for basic Microsoft desktop/server software? Ones that work approximately as well as Microsoft's.
Brian Valentine is probably one of the better VP's at Microsoft. Before Windows, he was heading up the Exchange group and brought them from 20-person MS Mail "start up" to a 100M+ deployed seats messaging juggernaut. Like it or not, in the recent "Can we ditch Exchange" thread, a lot of people admitted that it's a darn good enterpise solution.
Because of his success at Exchange, BrianV was pretty much told to take reigns of Windows to make Win2K happen. Or so the Microsoft urban legend goes.
I will undoubtedly be flamed for it, but I fail to see how Apple isn't a monopoly on Apple hardware. If a 3rd party developer writes exclusively for Mac platform, and Apple comes out with a bundled, "free" version of the same app, how would that not put the competitor out of business?
I wouldn't drive one - but you should see my unpaved, 500' uphill driveway in the winter.
Six letters - S U B A R U
What would be the advantage of writing PS2 Linux game vs. a DirectX or OpenGL PC game
as far as your hiring decision is concerned?
Just curious...
I am curious why they decided to ship on top of Windows XP Home and rely on Office XP
for handwriting recognition instead of waiting another few months for the release of
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (there's a mouthful).
I attended a presentation on the Microsoft TabletPC's a few months back and the handwriting
recognition in the OS was by far the most accurate I had seen to date on CE or Palm devices.
On top of that, with the WinXP TPCE, the handwriting recognition support is exposed via a set
of APIs and could be bolted onto any existing app. Not sure what the pricing for new OS will be,
but it seems like a much better way to go than taking dependency on Office and after $400 still not
being able to use pen input in other apps.
Ran strings on winsock.dll that comes in WinXP Professional.
Only one string referring to BSD popped up:
"BSD Socket API for Windows"
Now, how precisely does this imply use of actual BSD source code? Especially considering that the following website states the above string is a description of the DLL from Win 3.1 days.
To me that reads as "Microsoft implementation of BSD API" with the qualifier "for Windows"
I'm not defending Microsoft and I'll admit that while I use their products I have quite a few gripes about the general state of Windows.
e lf glasses.
However, much like you I too have just recently made a transition from idialistic world of CS to the real world of software industry. I'd like to present a different take on situation if you'll bear with me, one offered without wearing the pink-engineering-my-product-must-be-perfection-is
Over the years Microsoft has built up Windows into a commodity product (no glib remarks about marketing, please). The truth is, when the user buys a computer, I'm talking about an end-user purchasing a desktop system and not a server, they are purchasing an experience. The ability to write letters, check e-mail, listen to music, make home videos. How the machine helps them achieve these tasks is irrelevant. Right now, Windows plus some office suite (Works or Office) cover 90% of everything majority of users wish to do on their machine.
Now let's take a look at the OEMs. They ship machines with 90% of MS software, and while the OEM is responsible for the support of the system, they know that by having an all-Microsoft cast on the system they are assured interoperability. The OEM, thus, is not in the business of working the kinks out of their particular "distribution" of "computer usage experience". While the users may think of buying a "Dell" or "Gateway", who do they bash when their machines become finicky? Why Microsoft of course. There's a single point of blame in the industry.
If Windows on the desktop were to become modular, someone will have to pick up the resonsibility for ensuring consistent user experience and compatibility of middleware. Since modularizing Windows would mainly benefit vendors and through them users, it seems obvious that it is the OEM that should be assigned with such responsibility. Would Dell and Gateway really accept a new paragraph in their job description with profit margin being as thin as they are now? Call me a cynic, but I think in the end Microsoft will be stuck with this job. Moreover, the stigma of "I bought a Dell but it's Microsoft I blame" will hardly go away immediately once modularized Windows with 3-rd party middleware systems start shipping.
So in the end Microsoft ends up with extra chores, which IMHO are not their concern, even as a punishment, dilution of their brand image by products that are out of their influence (and they truly are, as any attempt to bring misbehaving 3-rd party vendor would surely be interpreted as anti-trust violation). No surprise they are opposed to this particular remedy, monopoly non-withstanding.
Erm... Why would Microsoft be upset by this? If the user has paid for their copy of Office they still get their money. If it's being pirated, then it's no different than if it was pirated on the Windows box.
Sure they'll lose out on some converts for whom the only block for going to Linux was Office. However, Microsoft does gain a new platform on which their software runs and which they don't have to officially support.
Run the original article link through Babelfish.
The Phillips device is an implementation of Mira spec, not an "invention". There was a CNet article a few days ago about Mira devices presented at CeBit this year.
Microsoft outlines policies for "well behaved" installations in Windows Logo Policies - Overview for Software.
This is similar (but not exactly like) to WHQL certification for hardware.
They're not expensive tastes. Just some of the software that's top-rated by Tucows. The browser pricing btw, is based on Netscape's license circa '97. If I remember correctly.
BeOS included a built-in browser at a cost of $0
OS/2 Warp included a built-in browser at a cost of $0
Netscape used its other revenue streams to fund Netscape distribution for free to educational institutions and individual users
So what has Microsoft done differently by including IE in Windows?
"Among the illegal tactics cited by the court was the "commingling" of Windows source code with add-on middleware.
I fail to see how stripping out add-on middleware from Windows will benefit the consumer in the end.
Currently the home OS ships for $100 and comes with a good browser, decent/basic archiver, basic CD burner and a bunch of other utilities that are "good enough" for 90% of the users. Is this unfair to other vendors that make more robust version of these utilities commercially? Perhaps...
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Suddenly the TCO of the system is going up at a prohibitive rate. Software isn't cheap, if you actually bother to license everything you use at home. Do we expect users, who don't bother now to research alternative options to Windows software, to make rational, cost-effective decisions about purchasing add-ons for their OS? Or do we expect middleware vendors to drop their prices once the competition ball is in their court? I don't see how the consumer's wallet will benefit from all this litigation in the end.
Start on MSDN and work your way from there.
Why not look at the "All" performance results, rather than just "Non-Clustered":
Top Ten TPC-C by Performance
Paints a whole different picture, doesn't it?
Okie. Let's look at the sheer performance then, using the same TPC benchmarks.
Top Ten TPC-C by Performance
Let's see... The top 3 spots are SQL 2000 running on Windows 2000 clusters.
Of course, if that's too "cheap" for you, you can spend an additional $2M for a "high-end" runner-up Fujitsu machine that will give you approx 60% performace (455K tpmC vs. 709K tpmC) of the Windows/SQL 2000 solution.
A guy I work with has an ex-Microsoft buddy who, since cashing out rich, has turned his attention to the Open Source community.
A few years back he had a, what seemed to everyone, brilliant idea. He wanted to start a company that would provide matchmaking services between companies needing Open Source coding work done and programmers willing to put time into such projects. The theory was that if 10,000 people wanted a replacement for Photoshop, they'd pool $100 into a bank fund that would later pay for 2 yrs of someone's full-time work.
It all *horribly* flopped. What this gentlemen found out whas that no one wanted to pay for an open source project. There were thousands of developers signing up for his service, some even with already planned apps. Except the user-end of the community didn't want to pony up, not even a nickel. They all wanted it free. Similar situation as with Loki.
Also, consider that 1 million dollars won't buy you 10 developers for 2 years. More realistically, $1M will get you a team of 5 devs (5 x $80K) and 10 testers (10 x $60K) for one year. $1M is peanuts in this industry.