ah, now we see YOUR true color... BTW, I've said that this is nothing new but I guess as a Microsoft apologist, you don't know much outside of praise for Bill Gates and the like.
Not everyone is driven by financial greed and some even believe that capitalism works for society AND BUSINESS when competition is allowed to exist under mutually acceptable rules. And some are not.
yea, they've been doing this for over 10 years( more like 15 ) so it's not new to those who have been in the industry for over 15 years AND kept up with what's going on.
This current 'insight' should only be a flag for newbies to be aware of how Microsoft works and that when you read stuff in the press( press releases, paid 'independant' research, articles, etc ), you must believe the high probability of the following: 1) that there are atleast a dozen Microsoft PR people behind it 2) atleast a handful of Microsoft executives who have massaged the 'message' to say what Microsoft wants it to say. 3) The only purpose of these documents is to increase the Truthiness( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness ) of some Microsoft scheme to protect the Microsoft Windows monopoly.
Again, old news but current insights provided by this memo should educate those not really watching or able to watch what's been going on for the last 15 years.
They are good at PR and as a marketing company with unlimited wealth, they should be. They are pretty good at fooling/working the legal system too.
HP had a GNU/Linux based MediaCenter PC but it was killed because they would lose marketing dollars from Microsoft if they shipped it. Now that HP is dropping the Microsoft MediaCenter PC for this smartTV setup, I wonder if that'll be GNU/Linux based?
But hey, I'd be happy if more HD TVs shipped without speakers let along have a MCPC embedded.
BTW, HP had a Linux and Java based handheld Jornada which met the same fate. Microsoft marketing dollars would be threatened if they shipped a Linux based handheld and the project was terminated. Microsoft innovation at work.
no no no, they've had this kind of high dollar PR since the early 1990s. Back then, it was only the printed press but they had quite the control on the press back then too. They were filthy rich back then too you know and being a company with 2nd rate tech, they knew they'd not win by competing on product merit. They are not dumb, just a very very good marketing company. IMO
get yourself a monopoly that'll feed your budget billions of dollars annually and you too can put a dozen or so top notch/paid PR people on a single reporter.
the "story" here is that Microsoft pinged Wired Magazine a few times on a story about their "new" communications mechanism( Channel 9 ) and when Wired finally put someone on it, Microsoft orchestrated every aspect of the information the reporter received. There's a big difference in knowing what your going to go up against and having a group of dozens analyzing this person and then telling you what to say to him/her to get "the right message" across.
This isn't new to me but I'm quite sure that many many average Joe/Joans don't know that Microsoft puts this kind of money into making sure the press sees things the One Microsoft Way.
Gnome was based on MS COM and MS COM was in response to the OOP based IBM SOM. Mono is based on MS C#/.Net which was designed in response to Sun Java. What he's done on top of the tech has no connection to my comments. What he's done to bring Microsoft tech to GNU/Linux is questionable and there is way too much history to show that you do not win or help your customers by letting Microsoft dictate the rules.
IMO, this is all a good reason for having two or more desktops. Especially when one is driven by someone so infatuated with Microsoft tech and Microsoft is threatening it'll use its patents to stop Linux.
yup, sure seems like he has a major interest in pleasing Microsoft.
Regarding MS IE for UNIX, that was all a trick to make sure MainSoft got a huge payoff so they could afford the win32 source license. Microsoft had just quadrupled the price of that license to the other Win32-on-UNIX vendors and the result was to kill off all those UNIX apps ported to Win32 since now they had no update strategy. After Microsoft shipped Windows 95, they directed millions putting MS Windows NT againt UNIX, Novell, and OS/2 servers and workstations.
Too bad De Icaza didn't get that job in 97. He'd have lost it pretty quickly as MS IE on UNIX had no legs and it might have 'colored' is idolization of them.
Why does this guy need comfort from and a working relationship with Microsoft? And why do all of his projects follow some tech Microsoft convolutes from some REAL tech(OOP, Java, etc)? Sure seems like he's got a case of Microsoft envy or something and IMO, it can only be terminal.
Because De Icaza is not only putting Microsoft tech in Mono, he's pushed Mono applications into Gnome and he's loading the MS Trojan Horse onto many GNU/Linux distros.
So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?
unfortunately, many support systems are funded by Microsoft and they are not allowed to support anything by the original configuration on Microsoft Windows. RoadRunner highspeed cable internet service was such a system and on a few occasions, their DNS servers would get screwed up and when I called to tell them, they'd keep asking me what OS I was running and if I told them I was running Linux, they'd say they could not help. In those cases, I resorted to telling them I was running the lowest/oldest supported version of MS Windows just to shut them up and get to the next tier of support.
I don't really blame the support people, but instead, the policies they have to work with. And the fact that Microsoft was allowed to get away with discounting licensing costs or otherwise fund the companies support system and therefore tying them forever to Microsoft. Some of you might recall that in the early to mid 90s, Microsoft signed deals with DEC, HP, Compaq, etc which always included a huge "training" portion. This was when the lockin started to occur.
I agree but this should not have been a voided warranty issue and the phone support person should have just said that she must reinstall the default OS before further support can be provided. And it's pretty easy to tell if a customer is having a software or hardware problem and more so in this case.
And because of the financial games Microsoft plays to protect their OS monopoly, we must also protect ourselves from losing some of the warranty support built into the cost of the systems we purchase.
IMO, the real lesson here is to have a way to restore the factory installed OS until the hardware warranty has expired.
I've seen over the years how this or that computer related company will ONLY support the product on a Microsoft Windows system even in the case of no REAL requirement for such. It is why I recommend anybody needing to deal with such a situation should just shrink the existing OS partition down to its smallest operational size and either leave it there or, back it up off to another disk and reuse the partition until it might be needed to restore to and get the support paid for.
What Microsoft has done to protect its monopoly is to pay vendors for supporting the Microsoft products those vendors sell. The payment is legal and is often looked at as a reduced cost for those Microsoft products purchased. Now you probably see how this falls apart for open source software since there is still a support cost but no software cost and nobody to help pay for this support.
So, until these businesses figure out how to provide open source software and still support their customers, for the duration of the support period, it's best to have that backup available.
I wonder if running the original software in a VM would have been enough for this particular case. It was a freaking keyboard problem for goodness sake. How much software is involved in making THAT work!
And it just so happens that EVERY TIME they do this, they make their version incompatible with the others.
So you think they are doing it to make it run better on Windows? Can I interest you in a piece of land on the moon?
Don't kid yourself, EVERYTHING Microsoft does is tweaked to act as a protection mechanism for the Microsoft Windows monopoly. And unfortunately, these tweaks always make the developers job more difficult and customer experience confusing in a heterogeneous environment.
I was waiting for the punchline but it never came. So I take it that this person really thinks Microsoft is benevolent and intends to do only good things to/with this group. How naive.
The news should be that they are joining this existing group so they can subvert it, slow it down, or just plain make sure their stuff doesn't work well on MS Windows.
They loses money on all but 3 places, MS Windows, MS Office, and MS Server. Their books have shown this year after year. It helps that the profits margins from these three areas are huge compared to market norms. And the other product areas/divisions have been losing billions year after year. That's MSN, WinCE, XBox, Tools, etc. Granted, there was one quarter where magically most of these showed a small profit but that was the quarter right after they cut their R&D budget from $6.6 billion to $3.3 billion. The following quarter these divisions where back to losing money.
Sure they have revenue but they spend more, much more then they make and it's all feed by the one monopoly based OS product and the two other divisions which leveraged that monopoly, MS Office and MS Server.
Also, let's not forget that every couple/three years Microsoft reorganizes and shuffles money around while their at it. All this so it's not easy to see what is losing more or where the money is coming from and going. IMO.
Nothing you've said shows they are nothing more than a one-trick-pony who were handed a monopoly by IBM and used that monopoly to create their current business model but NOTHING else. And revenue means noting when it's used like Microsoft uses it. They don't use it for REAL market competition but instead for anti-competitive purposes. For example, wasn't it keen how they "hired" MainSoft to port MS Internet Explorer to UNIX at the same time they quadrupled the licensing fee for Win32 to all the UNIX licensees. Only MainSoft could survive that and the result was that those UNIX apps ported to Win32 on UNIX eventually were dropped for lack of support and aged APIs. This just shows that THEY are the one-trick-pony who must play tricks, legal and illegal to maintain their position.
Again, Balmer is just playing their game of FUD against a company which is showing them up in technology and on wall-street. IMO
they don't have a monopoly on the server but they make around $20% or so of the profits from the suckers who buy their server software. The also make money on their money since they keep 10s of billions in the bank and in "investments".
They've pretty much sucked,,,, no that's capital "SUCKED" at anything they've done which did not leverage their MS Windows desktop monopoly.
And if you really care, go look it up. I'm not in the mood to spell out line by line what's been going on for 15+ years. Mr Balmer, do you REALLY want to start talking about a one trick pony?
even if the PalmOS got a brand spanking new updates every year, going up against a company willing to pay people to use their OS will not result in a marketshare lead. Microsoft has probably spent over $20 billion in the last 10 years on WinCE and half of that was paid for with MS Monopoly money.
I will agree that Palm developers blew it by thinking they could do a multitasking OS for so long and managment blew it by not knowing they couldn't do it. BUT, in a "real" competitive market, some other OS vendor would have stepped up to the plate. But with Microsoft DUMPING billions into the market, who would have the balls to try and go up against them and for how long would they try.
Whatever, Balmer has no place calling Googles other projects cute. Fortunately and unfortunately we've seen the last of the Monkeyboy dancing. He's now throwing chairs around and making cute jokes as he watches his companies growth level then fall. IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
it was most likely your title that started the tone for your responses. Myself, I didn't read your thread because of the title.
LoB
ah, now we see YOUR true color... BTW, I've said that this is nothing new but I guess as a Microsoft apologist, you don't know much outside of praise for Bill Gates and the like.
Not everyone is driven by financial greed and some even believe that capitalism works for society AND BUSINESS when competition is allowed to exist under mutually acceptable rules. And some are not.
LoB
yea, they've been doing this for over 10 years( more like 15 ) so it's not new to those who have been in the industry for over 15 years AND kept up with what's going on.
This current 'insight' should only be a flag for newbies to be aware of how Microsoft works and that when you read stuff in the press( press releases, paid 'independant' research, articles, etc ), you must believe the high probability of the following:
1) that there are atleast a dozen Microsoft PR people behind it
2) atleast a handful of Microsoft executives who have massaged the 'message' to say what Microsoft wants it to say.
3) The only purpose of these documents is to increase the Truthiness( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness ) of some Microsoft scheme to protect the Microsoft Windows monopoly.
Again, old news but current insights provided by this memo should educate those not really watching or able to watch what's been going on for the last 15 years.
They are good at PR and as a marketing company with unlimited wealth, they should be. They are pretty good at fooling/working the legal system too.
LoB
HP had a GNU/Linux based MediaCenter PC but it was killed because they would lose marketing dollars from Microsoft if they shipped it. Now that HP is dropping the Microsoft MediaCenter PC for this smartTV setup, I wonder if that'll be GNU/Linux based?
But hey, I'd be happy if more HD TVs shipped without speakers let along have a MCPC embedded.
BTW, HP had a Linux and Java based handheld Jornada which met the same fate. Microsoft marketing dollars would be threatened if they shipped a Linux based handheld and the project was terminated. Microsoft innovation at work.
LoB
Nope, nothing sinister and just Microsoft orchestrating the press with the control of a puppet master. business as usual.
LoB
no no no, they've had this kind of high dollar PR since the early 1990s. Back then, it was only the printed press but they had quite the control on the press back then too. They were filthy rich back then too you know and being a company with 2nd rate tech, they knew they'd not win by competing on product merit. They are not dumb, just a very very good marketing company. IMO
LoB
get yourself a monopoly that'll feed your budget billions of dollars annually and you too can put a dozen or so top notch/paid PR people on a single reporter.
LoB
the "story" here is that Microsoft pinged Wired Magazine a few times on a story about their "new" communications mechanism( Channel 9 ) and when Wired finally put someone on it, Microsoft orchestrated every aspect of the information the reporter received. There's a big difference in knowing what your going to go up against and having a group of dozens analyzing this person and then telling you what to say to him/her to get "the right message" across.
This isn't new to me but I'm quite sure that many many average Joe/Joans don't know that Microsoft puts this kind of money into making sure the press sees things the One Microsoft Way.
LoB
its original design was to follow MS OLE and COM. What it grew into is another story but THAT is not what I said in my original statement.
LoB
Gnome was based on MS COM and MS COM was in response to the OOP based IBM SOM. Mono is based on MS C#/.Net which was designed in response to Sun Java. What he's done on top of the tech has no connection to my comments. What he's done to bring Microsoft tech to GNU/Linux is questionable and there is way too much history to show that you do not win or help your customers by letting Microsoft dictate the rules.
LoB
IMO, this is all a good reason for having two or more desktops. Especially when one is driven by someone so infatuated with Microsoft tech and Microsoft is threatening it'll use its patents to stop Linux.
LoB
yup, sure seems like he has a major interest in pleasing Microsoft.
Regarding MS IE for UNIX, that was all a trick to make sure MainSoft got a huge payoff so they could afford the win32 source license. Microsoft had just quadrupled the price of that license to the other Win32-on-UNIX vendors and the result was to kill off all those UNIX apps ported to Win32 since now they had no update strategy. After Microsoft shipped Windows 95, they directed millions putting MS Windows NT againt UNIX, Novell, and OS/2 servers and workstations.
Too bad De Icaza didn't get that job in 97. He'd have lost it pretty quickly as MS IE on UNIX had no legs and it might have 'colored' is idolization of them.
LoB
Why does this guy need comfort from and a working relationship with Microsoft? And why do all of his projects follow some tech Microsoft convolutes from some REAL tech(OOP, Java, etc)? Sure seems like he's got a case of Microsoft envy or something and IMO, it can only be terminal.
Because De Icaza is not only putting Microsoft tech in Mono, he's pushed Mono applications into Gnome and he's loading the MS Trojan Horse onto many GNU/Linux distros.
So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?
LoB
unfortunately, many support systems are funded by Microsoft and they are not allowed to support anything by the original configuration on Microsoft Windows. RoadRunner highspeed cable internet service was such a system and on a few occasions, their DNS servers would get screwed up and when I called to tell them, they'd keep asking me what OS I was running and if I told them I was running Linux, they'd say they could not help. In those cases, I resorted to telling them I was running the lowest/oldest supported version of MS Windows just to shut them up and get to the next tier of support.
I don't really blame the support people, but instead, the policies they have to work with. And the fact that Microsoft was allowed to get away with discounting licensing costs or otherwise fund the companies support system and therefore tying them forever to Microsoft. Some of you might recall that in the early to mid 90s, Microsoft signed deals with DEC, HP, Compaq, etc which always included a huge "training" portion. This was when the lockin started to occur.
LoB
I agree but this should not have been a voided warranty issue and the phone support person should have just said that she must reinstall the default OS before further support can be provided. And it's pretty easy to tell if a customer is having a software or hardware problem and more so in this case.
And because of the financial games Microsoft plays to protect their OS monopoly, we must also protect ourselves from losing some of the warranty support built into the cost of the systems we purchase.
IMO, the real lesson here is to have a way to restore the factory installed OS until the hardware warranty has expired.
LoB
I've seen over the years how this or that computer related company will ONLY support the product on a Microsoft Windows system even in the case of no REAL requirement for such. It is why I recommend anybody needing to deal with such a situation should just shrink the existing OS partition down to its smallest operational size and either leave it there or, back it up off to another disk and reuse the partition until it might be needed to restore to and get the support paid for.
What Microsoft has done to protect its monopoly is to pay vendors for supporting the Microsoft products those vendors sell. The payment is legal and is often looked at as a reduced cost for those Microsoft products purchased. Now you probably see how this falls apart for open source software since there is still a support cost but no software cost and nobody to help pay for this support.
So, until these businesses figure out how to provide open source software and still support their customers, for the duration of the support period, it's best to have that backup available.
I wonder if running the original software in a VM would have been enough for this particular case. It was a freaking keyboard problem for goodness sake. How much software is involved in making THAT work!
LoB
And it just so happens that EVERY TIME they do this, they make their version incompatible with the others.
So you think they are doing it to make it run better on Windows? Can I interest you in a piece of land on the moon?
Don't kid yourself, EVERYTHING Microsoft does is tweaked to act as a protection mechanism for the Microsoft Windows monopoly. And unfortunately, these tweaks always make the developers job more difficult and customer experience confusing in a heterogeneous environment.
LoB
I was waiting for the punchline but it never came. So I take it that this person really thinks Microsoft is benevolent and intends to do only good things to/with this group. How naive.
LoB
The news should be that they are joining this existing group so they can subvert it, slow it down, or just plain make sure their stuff doesn't work well on MS Windows.
LoB
For some reason, this guy reminds me of one of the "Three Stooges".
;-)
"Calling Dr Howard, Dr Fine, Dr Howard"...
Maybe it's because he needs a brain transplant.
LoB
It sure sounds like "the most secure Windows ever" has been over cooked.
LoB
They loses money on all but 3 places, MS Windows, MS Office, and MS Server. Their books have shown this year after year. It helps that the profits margins from these three areas are huge compared to market norms. And the other product areas/divisions have been losing billions year after year. That's MSN, WinCE, XBox, Tools, etc. Granted, there was one quarter where magically most of these showed a small profit but that was the quarter right after they cut their R&D budget from $6.6 billion to $3.3 billion. The following quarter these divisions where back to losing money.
Sure they have revenue but they spend more, much more then they make and it's all feed by the one monopoly based OS product and the two other divisions which leveraged that monopoly, MS Office and MS Server.
Also, let's not forget that every couple/three years Microsoft reorganizes and shuffles money around while their at it. All this so it's not easy to see what is losing more or where the money is coming from and going. IMO.
Nothing you've said shows they are nothing more than a one-trick-pony who were handed a monopoly by IBM and used that monopoly to create their current business model but NOTHING else. And revenue means noting when it's used like Microsoft uses it. They don't use it for REAL market competition but instead for anti-competitive purposes. For example, wasn't it keen how they "hired" MainSoft to port MS Internet Explorer to UNIX at the same time they quadrupled the licensing fee for Win32 to all the UNIX licensees. Only MainSoft could survive that and the result was that those UNIX apps ported to Win32 on UNIX eventually were dropped for lack of support and aged APIs. This just shows that THEY are the one-trick-pony who must play tricks, legal and illegal to maintain their position.
Again, Balmer is just playing their game of FUD against a company which is showing them up in technology and on wall-street.
IMO
LoB
they don't have a monopoly on the server but they make around $20% or so of the profits from the suckers who buy their server software. The also make money on their money since they keep 10s of billions in the bank and in "investments".
They've pretty much sucked,,,, no that's capital "SUCKED" at anything they've done which did not leverage their MS Windows desktop monopoly.
And if you really care, go look it up. I'm not in the mood to spell out line by line what's been going on for 15+ years. Mr Balmer, do you REALLY want to start talking about a one trick pony?
LoB
even if the PalmOS got a brand spanking new updates every year, going up against a company willing to pay people to use their OS will not result in a marketshare lead. Microsoft has probably spent over $20 billion in the last 10 years on WinCE and half of that was paid for with MS Monopoly money.
I will agree that Palm developers blew it by thinking they could do a multitasking OS for so long and managment blew it by not knowing they couldn't do it. BUT, in a "real" competitive market, some other OS vendor would have stepped up to the plate. But with Microsoft DUMPING billions into the market, who would have the balls to try and go up against them and for how long would they try.
Whatever, Balmer has no place calling Googles other projects cute. Fortunately and unfortunately we've seen the last of the Monkeyboy dancing. He's now throwing chairs around and making cute jokes as he watches his companies growth level then fall. IMO.
LoB
you forgot around 20% from the server software which leverages a monopoly(OS) but is not a monopoly in itself