Power User

You said "The new MediaMax threat is particularly worrying because it will be installed on ANY PC which plays the 'infected' CDs, EVEN if you decline to accept the EULA which is presented." That's not entirely true: this only applies to Window PCs. There's always a way around this crap.

It's possible that a CD with one of these "DRM" rootkits might prevent a non-Windows PC from reading the CD, but if that's the case all you've done is saved yourself from getting a rootkit on your PC. That seems like a perfect opportunity to return it for a refund.

This move of Sony's only makes economic sense if you let it. Get your money back where you can, and stop buying anything of theirs until they get the message that screwing with your computer is not allowable.

While Apotheon?s comment is undeniably true, it is also 95% irrelevant.

Most of these music CDs are not bought by computer security
experts, they are bought by average individuals ? mostly kids, in fact, who
love to rip their own mix CDs so any arguments about not playing into Sony?s
possible plot have nothing to do with reality.

As
for non-Windows, come on now ? That is obviously completely off
base.  95%+ of the home PCs in the world are
Windows-based, political correctness never stopped a tornado and saying
non-Windows PCs are the solution to a massive consumer problem simply
isn?t the
mark of someone living in the real world. Linux has a place in
business, a very important place, but not in the average home. As for
Apple, I don't like single sourcing hardware for business, never have,
never will, and I used to work for Wang (my attitude didn't make me
terribly popular there, but it did make me correct and kept me employed
when everyone else there was looking for work).

Freedom of speech doesn't absolve anyone of anything under the
constitution - I think that is the REAL problem, thinking that it does
(not the respondant to my posting, WearsManyHats, but the people who, I completely
agree, DO seem to think it it leaves them unaccountable.) That is why
reporters go to jail to protect sources rather than fleeing the country
- they recognize that freedom requires taking personal responsibility.

FoS is actually Freedom of the Press, not just license for anyone to
say anything they want - this has been distorted too much in recent
years.

I do think that taking too much freedom at the expense of
responsibility, especially just to make money, is irresponsible - the
problem is just WHO draws the line - it is usually government and the
big concern faced by reporters and the ACLU is really whether the
govt. is limiting speech because it is bad, or because it criticizes
the government.

That is what really frightens a lot of people about what the administration with wiretaps sans warrants.

But, it is an established point of law that
"The Constitution is not a suicide pack"
The problem comes in reconciling that with FoS.

However, I just don't see how this can be legitimately applied to
marketing violent video games to children - that strikes me as a
question of public health, albeit mental health in this case.

When weighing FoS questions, I, as a reporter and member of The
National Press Club of many year's standing, like to pose the question:

What is the harm if I (or society) am wrong in limiting this?

In cases of religion, government ethics, corruption, etc, the harm of
preventing opposing or even outrageous ideas from being explored
publically, can be enormous - as big as risking freedom and democarcy.

But the harm, if any, of not letting children be immunized to participating in virtual killings??

The good posed by enforcing a ban which is already agreed upon, verses some imiganary harm, is simply not worthy of debate.

Game makers try to make this an FoS argument at the expense of society.

If we can't enforce the prohibition aginst kids buying and using these
games, I, for one, would gladly give up my persona lright and freedom
to
play Doom in the interest of living in a less violent society - even,
and I want to emphasize this, if it is only a slight chance that the
society would benefit.

An excellent point that many people miss.

Yes, you have freedom of speech to pretty much say what you want.

The part that people forget is there can be negative impacts from saying whatever you want.

I have a right to say something racist, and then everyone around me has the right to treat me like an idiot for being so.

Journalist have a right to freedom of the press, and I have a right to
not buy their publication if I think they are out of line.

The best interests of our children and our socety should be our first
concern.  People care about the enviroinment being poluted, why
not our minds?

Responsiblity.  What a concept.  (it will never catch on)

All too simplistic?

I started gaming back in the 80s on the Commodore 64. Before that I toyed with Atari. I'm now in my early thirties and still love gaming as much as I did then. I have no criminal record. I got my first speeding fine last year (15 km/h above). I've been in one fight all my life - and both of us got some. I've pretty much played everything PC related out there and still participate in LAN events. As an experienced gamer I have started taking exception with titles such as Doom 3 and Quake 4. I wiped both half-way through. Why? Because they are an insult to anyone with 2 brain-cells. They contain no story-line and their only selling-point is the graphics. Gameplay is utterly predictable. Yet, there are recent titles like the Knights of the Old Republic series (or earlier Deus Ex) - brilliant. A believable uninverse. Are they any less violent that Doom or Quake - no. The point here is that for some the gaming industry has stood still. Games are becoming increasingly like interactive movies, and movies have plots. The good gaming houses have realized this.

This brings me to my point - at which age should a kid be exposed to violence? None during the childhood years and then straight to George Bush's army? I am of the oppinion that children should be exposed to violence in a constructive way. Have them kick the daylight out of each other in a martial arts class. Once you've gotten kicked in the ribs you know it hurts like hell and will think twice about doing to someone else just on the off chance that he/she may do it back to you. Simply put, sanitize your childrens' world from violence and you raise adults with no experience of it, no respect for its extremes, totally self-centred because they believe what they dish out never comes back, or totally pathetic ending up being bullied anyhow. Violence is part of human nature. Deny that at your own risk. Prohibition has never worked and it never will. Rather, take an interest in what your kids are doing. Play the games with them. Then at least you'll know what they are being exposed to. And there may be the off chance that it keeps you young and thinking.

All too simplistic?

I started gaming back in the 80s on the Commodore 64. Before that I toyed with Atari. I'm now in my early thirties and still love gaming as much as I did then. I have no criminal record. I got my first speeding fine last year (15 km/h above). I've been in one fight all my life - and both of us got some. I've pretty much played everything PC related out there and still participate in LAN events. As an experienced gamer I have started taking exception with titles such as Doom 3 and Quake 4. I wiped both half-way through. Why? Because they are an insult to anyone with 2 brain-cells. They contain no story-line and their only selling-point is the graphics. Gameplay is utterly predictable. Yet, there are recent titles like the Knights of the Old Republic series (or earlier Deus Ex) - brilliant. A believable uninverse. Are they any less violent that Doom or Quake - no. The point here is that for some the gaming industry has stood still. Games are becoming increasingly like interactive movies, and movies have plots. The good gaming houses have realized this.

This brings me to my point - at which age should a kid be exposed to violence? None during the childhood years and then straight to George Bush's army? I am of the oppinion that children should be exposed to violence in a constructive way. Have them kick the daylight out of each other in a martial arts class. Once you've gotten kicked in the ribs you know it hurts like hell and will think twice about doing to someone else just on the off chance that he/she may do it back to you. Simply put, sanitize your childrens' world from violence and you raise adults with no experience of it, no respect for its extremes, totally self-centred because they believe what they dish out never comes back, or totally pathetic ending up being bullied anyhow. Violence is part of human nature. Deny that at your own risk. Prohibition has never worked and it never will. Rather, take an interest in what your kids are doing. Play the games with them. Then at least you'll know what they are being exposed to. And there may be the off chance that it keeps you young and thinking.

Debating Darwin does not automatically qualify a country as 'a third-world country seriously debating Darwin.'.

In fact I challenge you to produce one incontrovertible fact that proves 'Molecules to Man' evolution. Micro evolution happens all the time, but Macro evolution is unscientific and is based on faith not fact.

A man of your 'scientific' training should be aware of that or do you really swallow everything you are told without thinking it through?

As a scientist, what I always notice first about the
complaints that evolution hasn?t been absolutely proven with every single piece
of evidence filling in every single gap, is that, while there are millions of
pieces of data supporting Darwin?s
concepts, there isn?t a single piece of evidence for creationism or intelligent
design.

 Faith, or an inability to understand just how statistics work
and how many possible things might happen in a couple billion
years,  isn't the same thing as evidence.

So, the current score is:

Millions of pieces of evidence proving evolution

Zero evidence proving intelligent design

Science and technology are all based on scientific
method rather than faith. What non scientists tend to forget is that,
when you
come to the bottom line, airplanes fly, people can easily create new
breeds of
dogs and chickens in just a few years, medicine works, and so forth. If
scientific method didn't work then we couldn't have medicine,
technology, etc.

And, looking only at a single instance, the famous penguin movie -
just what is so intelligent about laying eggs on glaciers and birds
having to walk miles to the sea to gather food?
 

Faith is a wonderful thing, it just isn?t science. Also, of course,
there are an awful lot of different faiths and believers in each one
say their is the only correct one so that poses a problem when you try
to make faith the basis of technology.

In science it is easy to see what works.

While a scientist can certainly believe in god and have a firm
faith, a scientist doesn't let faith substitute for facts and never
confuses the two.

Look, I'm not going to try to convince you that intelligent design is correct. What I find offensive is that if someone disagrees with Darwinian evolution, those people are written off as stupid. The truth is, that there are millions of pieces of evidence that support the theory of evolution, but nothing that proves it. The same evidence often supports a belief in intelligent design.

And it is not a lack of understanding of statistics that causes people to not believe in evolution. In fact it is a growing understanding of how statistically impossible it is that life evolved as Darwin suggests in the short time that the Earth has existed--yes, billions of years. The reason, as you say, that intelligent design doesn't have any 'evidence' to prove it, is because every time that someone presents evidence, it is utterly ignored or the definition of 'evidence' is changed by those who have a blind faith in Darwinian evolution. I believe that there is real natural evidence that points toward intelligent design, but at the very least, there are millions of pieces of evidence that point away from Darwinian evolution. But that evidence is ignored by neo-Darwinists.

And the scientifice method is not what the orignal posted comment was criticizing. I think we can all agree that the scientific method has produced some pretty tremendous technical advancements in the past 100 or so years. The problem is that Darwinian evolutionists tend to ignore the scientific method when they argue in favor of their idealism--naturalism. No amount of evidence can be presented to a neo-Darwinist that would cause them to ask any of the pertinent questions that scientists should be asking. They simply stick to their ideology in spite of the evidence. That's fine and you have a right to do that, but don't disparage others who do ask the questions and come up with different answers.

The main point of my post here is to say that there are many extremely intelligent people who support intelligent design theory. They include biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, doctors, lawyers, computer engineers, and many others. Disagree with them. That is your right. But please respect that this difference of opinion about the evidence does not make these people unintelligent or incapable of coming up with technological advances.

I enjoyed your article and think you have some good points. And even though I think you're wrong in you're posted comment, I enjoyed reading it and getting your perspective. Good job.

By the way, creating new breeds of chickens and dogs is more an example of intelligent design than evolution. ;-)

Sure, there is no proof of evolution, just millions of pieces of evidence it is true.

There is also no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, just millions
of pieces of evidence and none to the contrary. When I hire someone to
work for me I give preference to the ones who expect the sun to rise.

If you don?t believe it is important that people understand
the difference between theology and science, then logic says you should
hire
your engineers and doctors from Yale or Harvard Divinity Schools.
I?ll hire mine from MIT , CMU, and Harvard
Medical. My point, of course, was that most successful technology
companies will prefer to hire engineers over graduates from a theology
school, at least to design products. Theocracies tend not to be highly successful in business or scientific fields.

I do have lots of good Amish neighbors but they don?t
believe in electricity or internal combustion engines any more than they
believe in Darwin and you probably do have a car and electric lights. I did
notice some Amish in my cardiologist?s office last week though so perhaps faith
depends a lot on where you place your priorities and what threats you are
facing.

(Actually the Amish just think that living without electricy and
such gives them just as good a life as modern life, but at least they
are honest about it and don't just accept all the benefits of science
and technology while denying their underlying logic.)

I could be wrong.

I am encouraged by the fact that you admit
that intelligent design doesn't require much intelligence and you see
that even people can design things, such as new dog breeds - I guess
that might indicate that it doesn't take all that much intelligence to
design when even your average puppy mill owner can do it. Kinda makes
you think that it could even happey just by accident, doesn't it?

I'm encouraged that you can admit that evolutionists can't seem to tell the difference between theology and science. I, too, would only hire engineers, or any employee, who thought the sun was going to rise tomorrow. Whether that engineer believed the sun was created or just came into being by chance and natural law really has no bearing on whether he or she can design computers or bridges, etc. An engineer can be a fine engineer and a scientist can be a fine scientist regardless of their beliefs related to the origins of life and the universe.

Intelligent design theory is the study of natural evidence to point to the origins of life and the universe. Evolution theory is also the study of natural evidence (and ignoring much of it) to point to the origins of life and the universe. Carl Sagan, a scientist, when presented with the statistical improbability of life starting on this planet through nothing other than chance and natural law, given the age of the universe, suggested that perhaps there were an infinite number of universes. Surely if there were an infinite number of universes, one of them would be able to have the right conditions for life to begin, and we just happen to live in that universe. Of course, science cannot study those universes because they would exist outside our own. I wouldn't argue his point, but it requires a great deal of faith to believe something like that. Sounds a little like theology doesn't it. Would you not hire Carl Sagan? Intelligent design theory is not theology. When the discussion gets to the nature of the designer, if there is one, then that's theology.

By the way, I doubt that either one of us could design and build a dog. That is beyond either of our capabilities. But evolutionists tend to refer to creating new breeds being evidence of Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwinian evolution requires a genetic mutation which results in a feature that was not present in the parents. Dog and cat breeding is simply removing the unwanted genetic material and concentrating wanted genetic features by carefully planning breeding as opposed to allowing it to happen naturally. So you're point about design being a simple task is really erroneous.

I live in an isolated area where DSL is not available. My fastest dial
up speed was 26 KBS. It was usually even slower. I read about Wildblue
in The Wall Street Journal and decided to give it a try. It started out
great. Everything was so much faster. I decided to download a few Linux
releases so that I could decide which one was best for me. That was the
start of my problems with Wildblue. All of a sudden my browser speed
was down about the same as when I had dial up. This was around the
holidays. So I figured Wildblue had some servers down or tech staff
off. So I didn't pay much attention.

The slow speed continued into January. So I finally called Tech
support. That was when I was first told about "the fair access policy".
Actually, it was in the fine print of the contract that the installer
gave me after I signed off on the installation. It turned out that I
had exceeded the 10,000 MB download limit for December. I actually
downloaded 10,266 MB in December. So Wildblue reduce my acces speed
down to 100 KBS. I was told that my acces speed would go back up after
I dropped down to 80% of the 10,000 MB cap.  I did know that I was
allowed to connect up to 3 PC's to Wildblue under the terms of the
value pack. So I connected my PC and the PC's for two family members. I
asked how it could be called "fair access" if I was limited to 10,000
MB for three PC's while someone using a single PC could use the entire
10,000 MB. The Wildblue representative could not answer the question. I
also sent an e-mail message to Wildblue tech support asking the same
question. I never received a response to my question despite a follow
up e-mail.

The really good news is that Wildblue decided that 10,000 MB was just
too much band width for the value pack. So I will be limited to 7,500
starting with March 2006. The upload limit will drop from 3,000 MB to
2,300 MB. By the way, the more expensive plans will also have
reductions in their bandwidths. That part has never been a problem for
me. In fact, I wonder why I couldn't exchange my unsed upload for
download. But never mind that.

I realize that satellite time is expensive. My major complaint is 
that this policy was never explained to me when I inquired about
Wildblue. I am also not happy about Wildblue further decreasing the
bandwidth after I signed a one year contract for the service.
Naturally, Wildblue's attorneys had to forsight to add this possibility
into the fine print on the contract.

Other than that, I am satisfied with their service. My service was down
one night when I decided to do something in the middle of the night. I
called tech support and was informed that routine mainteance was being
performed on the servers.  The tech support person could not give
me an estimate of the down time. But the service was up and running the
next day. I recently had a temporary outtage during a heavy rain storm.

Back to my Linux downloads. I have had no problem connecting to
Wildblue with any of the Linux releases that I have tried. My most
recent experience was browsing using a "Damned Small Linux" release
running on nothing but virtual memory.

I'm sorry you had a problem. I found the fair use policy to be clearly
explained to me but that doesn't mean you didn't have a different
experience.

I agree that the main site should probably have more prominent
information about the fair use policy, I guess they may be relying too
heavily on local installers to be up front with the information.

I do know that running two PCs 24X7 with streaming stock quotes and lots of other activity, I never came close to my limits.

I am curious, are you sorry you tried WildBlue? I think that would be a
valuable comment for other readers, along with your thoughtful
explanation of the problems you encountered.

So who will help IT when it's one or few people are all down for the count?

Well, sure, if I was using a Windows car all that would be true. At least half those problems would evaporate with an open source car, though. Plus, y'know, it'd be free.

Have you seen Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning was the Command Line? It's a truly excellent piece of writing, and the analogy of the OS business to the car business is thoroughly hilarious. Hysterical, even. I recommend it quite highly.

I think that a balanced discussion about Microsoft's future
prospects must include a list of the things they do right. I don't have the
time or the inclination this morning to attempt a complete list, but I'll
contribute a few just-off-the-top-of-my-head items - in the hope that others
will flesh out the list.

I became a Microsoft developer by acquisition - Fox Software to be precise.
Despite years of predictions of FoxPro's imminent demise, MS has continued to
develop the platform. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed when VFP was not
merged into the "grand vision" with the other programming platforms
in Visual Studio, but all the same Visual FoxPro has not been treated as a poor
relation.

I have, actually, tried hard not to be further usurped into the MS camp - I
have experimented with Linux, Perl, PHP, MySQL, Open Source, Open Office, etc.
I develop applications for the small business community, and keeping costs in
check is important. Linux came with the same price that I found Unix/Xenix to
have 15 years ago - hard to configure, hard to maintain, and expensive to hire
assistance for. Raw Perl and raw PHP are primitive compared to modern desktop
programming languages. IDEs are available, but everything seems to come from a
different source and tends to be as hard to implement as Linux itself.

Don't tell me it can be done. I know that. It has been done. Many developers
are highly successful with the whole mish-mash of MS alternatives that are
available. My point is NOT that MS alternatives are not viable. My point is
that MS has done a few things right, and an unbiased look at this comparison
has to include a few of the things they are doing right::

- They have a KnowledgeBase that is - to the best of my knowledge -
unparalleled. It is free to all and well-indexed by Google. As a developer, I
have not had to call their tech support line in years. Virtually everything I
bump my head on has been documented, along with step-by-step instructions for
resolving my issues.

- Taking into consideration the vast array of software they develop, Microsoft
is fairly consistent with their interfaces. Once you know how to work in MS
software, you can find your way around most any other piece of MS software.

- Microsoft DOES study usability. Whether you agree with their interface
choices or not, they design with the end-user in mind.

- Microsoft has an incredible developer training program, which includes both
live and webcast events almost every business day of the year. Much of their
training is free and it is real training - not just marketing.

- Microsoft continues to dominate the OS and browser market, despite the
gigantic target on their back and their forehead. All the talk about Apple,
Linux (desktop) and Firefox being more secure is largely based upon the fact
that their market share is miniscule compared to MS. (For the record, I use
Firefox as my primary browser, and IE7 will have to be pretty awesome to change
that.)

- Microsoft applications work together. They publish reams of documentation on
how to integrate their offerings.

- While Google is throwing mud at the wall and watching most of it slide right
off, Microsoft has a tendency to enter markets with purpose and resolve.

- Microsoft bundles most of the products a developer needs into subscriptions
that make being a MS developer a very reasonable proposition.

- However skewed MS comparisons may be, the fact is that it IS more expensive
to implement a platform that is poorly supported. Microsoft is out to make a
buck - and they deliver commercial quality product with commercial quality
support for the buck they charge.

- Microsoft's Windows Mobile 5.0 is an awesome tiny adaptation of the Windows
platform, and the integration of mobile development into Visual Studio will
paying increasing dividends for at least several years to come.

As a developer, I finally came back around to Microsoft for several of the
reasons listed above. It became very frustrating to try to work around them. I
think Open Office is a great alternative for any business which does not need
the most advanced features of an office suite, and MySQL is an awesome SQL
platform if cutting-edge SQL features are not necessary. I recommend, consume
and deploy these (and similar) free resources whenever possible. But I am tired
of trying to mix solutions from 12 different sources in order to avoid MS. I am
tired of having 12 different installation/configuration experiences in 1
deployment (and - yes - I HAVE heard of LAMP). It makes more sense for my
clients to pay a little extra for the necessary platform, if it means that the
implementation can be simple and consistent.

Smart people think too much. Most of the havoc in my own life was created by
other-thinking - always trying to outsmart the world. I have come to view all
the Microsoft-bashing that is going on in the media currently as just more of
this over-thinking, fear and misplaced "rebellion". Fear that MS may
take over the world. And rebellion of the sort lampooned in the Sprint (?)
commercial (Boss says, "It's just my way of sticking it to the man."
Subordinate responds, "But, sir - you ARE the man!")

As mentioned in the original blog post - there are quite a few large
competitors, and there is still plenty of new turf to compete over.
Anti-Microsoft religion is no better than Pro-Microsoft religion. It clouds our
judgment. As developers, we should be rewarding the companies which provide us
with tools to do our jobs more efficiently. So far as I can see, Microsoft is
currently doing enough things right to fend off the wolves at their door for
many years to come. And - if my assertion is true - MS platforms should receive
the same consideration as any other when planning a new project.

I believe Google is in a much more precarious position than Microsoft right
now. Virtually all their income comes from advertising sales - driven by a computing
infrastructure that must be exceedingly expensive. They have invested heavily
in a diverse array of other web adventures - most of which have come out of the
oven half-baked. If they do not have a vision that goes beyond what I have seen
so far, they may eventually find themselves no more than a gigantic advertising
brokerage. Google's future is a far more interesting speculation than that
about Microsoft, in my estimation.

With all due respect, you?re trying to compare Microsoft?s stock to that of a dot.com which is nuts.  MSFT along with Cisco, other leading companies, and the S&P 500 have been in a relative slump for the last 5 years because they were way over valued at the height of the dot.com era.  Most of these stabilized companies have settled in to the proper P/E ratio.  You can?t compare it to a fast rising dot.com with no profit and an infinite P/E ratio.

For the first time in recent months, Microsoft has surpassed UNIX in data center market share.  People aren?t migrating away from Microsoft on the desktop.  Declaring the death of Microsoft is just silly.

Microsof will not collapse mainly because there aren't any good alternatives for desktop pcs that are user friendly, stable (not that Microsoft are) and that offer big corporations assurance that will be there for the next 3-5 years. Furthermore, look at office family, look at email servers and clients options, etc... there aren't really any big contenders out there and that's why they are still the giant they are.

I can appreciate your viewpoint, but it is a well-worn one which I have heard for well over 10 years now.

The prediction of the MS collapse is as popular as the doomsday myth.

The problem with open source is how to set standards and how to sustain these in an economy that depends on revenue. The adage that "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" is especially true, resulting in the demise of all those socialist societies at the end of the last century.

I am pro MS, but I am also interested in the goings on of the open source community.  I also develop in Java and like many others have investigated Linux, PHP, and all the rest.  But for everyday use, it's Windows all the way.  That's the key to the Microsoft success.  They have the secure market penetration, they have the image.  It has become a mindset as anyone who has tried to push Linux onto a non-geek will know.

As for your sustainability analysis, well maybe you could check back with Bill in about 10-15 years time.  You might just be able to say "I told you so" ...

Interesting read but do not miss the fine print in Microsoft?s business style ?

?    Microsoft is the ONLY large enterprises who admits it has missed something then goes aggressively after that market ? Macintosh gave birth to Windows, Novell to Windows NT, Lotus to Excel, WordPerfect to Word, Netscape to IE, Google to Windows Live, Playstation to Xbox, Palm to Pocket PC etc etc etc & by version 3 they are dominant! Their $56b cash allows them to get it right over several iterations! And eventually its very own competitors utilize MS products ? Sun releases Windows servers, Palm releases a Pocket PC

?    Microsoft admitted in 2004 that their current development method was outdated and they will not be able to compete in the future if they don?t change ? so they did change and starting rewriting Vista in components and that is why Vista is coming out late THIS year instead of early 2005! Moving forward we will all witness rapid feature releases on Vista.

?    It is because of people?s desire for reliability that Microsoft has delayed the release of Vista by another 2 months. This delay means that it will be released in October but that gives too little time to get it onto the shelves for Xmas so it is being generally released in January and anyway do you think consumers will spend on an new PC with Vista or PS3 this Xmas?

?    Microsoft has been doomed to die so many times because of the impending takeover of the web browser, internet appliance, open source and now Web 2.0 (of which I believe MS is already the undisputed leader ? Google aside!).

What everyone forgets is the staying power and aggression of Microsoft!

Interesting read but do not miss the fine print in Microsoft?s business style, see details below  ?

?    Microsoft is the ONLY large enterprises who admits it has missed something then goes aggressively after that market ? Macintosh gave birth to Windows, Novell to Windows NT, Lotus to Excel, WordPerfect to Word, Netscape to IE, Google to Windows Live, Playstation to Xbox, Palm to Pocket PC etc etc etc & by version 3 they are dominant! Their $56b cash allows them to get it right over several iterations! And eventually its very own competitors utilize MS products ? Sun releases Windows servers, Palm releases a Pocket PC

?    Microsoft admitted in 2004 that their current development method was outdated and they will not be able to compete in the future if they don?t change ? so they did change and starting rewriting Vista in components and that is why Vista is coming out late THIS year instead of early 2005! Moving forward we will all witness rapid feature releases on Vista.

?    It is because of people?s desire for reliability that Microsoft has delayed the release of Vista by another 2 months. This delay means that it will be released in October but that gives too little time to get it onto the shelves for Xmas so it is being generally released in January and anyway do you think consumers will spend on an new PC with Vista or PS3 this Xmas?

?    Microsoft has been doomed to die so many times because of the impending takeover of the web browser, internet appliance, open source and now Web 2.0 (of which I believe MS is already the undisputed leader ? Google aside!).

What everyone forgets is the staying power and aggression of Microsoft!

Let's look at what Microsoft do.

The vast majority of their business is to produce software. They are a business much like any other (but a hell of a lot bigger) and are therefore entitled to produce their wares within copyright or patent laws.

Linux is open source and programming code is available to anyone - so be it. BUT IT IS NOT SECURE. You have the source code for any version out there and that means that anyone can screw around with it. If microsoft want to keep source code it locked away in a safe in a deep cave in the middle of nowhere, behind a gate saying "BEWARE OF THE TROLL" then so be it. You make a lock some dipstick will want to pick it.

Microsoft are upfront when there is a problem, and fix it asap. They also scan releases to check for other bugs and security issues. No other software supplier except for anti-virus developers release updates as often.

Credit where credit is due.

Quick - name three highly successful French companies

Alcatel
Vivendi (water services)
Les Lyonaises des Eaux

Well I feel MS will keep struggling on for a while yet, the home desktop market will keep them alive if nothing else, along with their hand inglove operation with various hardware manufacturers. I don't think we'll see a big chnage in MS's fortunes either way untill we get another step change in technology. If their sheer inertia makes them late in or puts them in denial, they'll die a death, if they grasp it as an opportunity, their empire will have new life breathed into it.

So it's rumours of my demise are in error, senility however is a point.

PS SmogMonster. Yes Open Source means you are at liberty to change the code, however if you choose to do something underhanded in there, your peers will spot it. If a closed source company chooses to do something underhanded for instance a rootkit to be topical, your only chance of detecting it is to notice the effects. Open Source means it's open to peer review, it's actually less open to abuse because of that, not more.

Sorry to go off topic but I couldn't less that piece of misinformation go past without comment.

With the current trend in software to be in selling support services until Microsoft reduces the cost of the software and targets the support services market I don't see their stock value as having much chance of increasing.

The French Government's recent assault on proprietary content from Apple, and the EU's assault on Microsoft itself for anti competition practices both are sending a clear message, "that the time has come to change the commercialsoftware industry".
It appears that both are saying that Apple and Microsoft should look at the successful open source software company's business model and adopt it as much as possible.

Strictly from a business viewpoint, looking at the commercial software vendors decline or holding pattern on the stock markets since the dot com bust, then comparing them to the incredible improvement by only one open source company in that same period, I would have to say that the open source model seems to be where the best investment is currently. The open source company I am referring to is Mandrakesoft.sa in France, they went from being very close to invoking bankruptcy protection on 2003 to being able to outright purchase 2 other distributions in 2005. To completely turn the business direction around in a 2 year period and make such a drastic improvement in their financial situation does say that they have implemented a business model that is worth looking at.

Like the stereotypical, cynical CS mind that denies the existence of God because they have an innate contempt of authority and fear of submitting their will and intellect to ANY higher authority or mainstream success, this individual makes unjustified leaps and bounds where cynicism defies reason.

I developed Finite Element Method and Medical Imaging software in open source.  Once I began programming in a Microsoft IDE it was clear to me why they are the best and most successful software company in the world.  Why any developer who has been on the other side of the fence would CHOOSE to not use Microsoft is beyond me.  It's like saying, "Please, make me less effective at achieving my goals in life."  The FireFox guy is absolutely right.  You cannot put a pricetag on productivity.  Unless you are making Avionics and truly need Ada, why would you want to spend your time in Open Source, battling the dirty and monotonous pitfalls, when MS platform shields you from the majority of those pitfalls with integrated guidance, frameworks, SDKs, and KB. Personally I'd rather spend my brain power and time in design and implementation, and let the platform remove my dirty work so I can be better at what I do.

Also does this guy know anything about OS development?  10 developers LOL!  To achieve what MS has achieved with Windows and Server?  LOL!!!!  What is this some PhD hypothesizing their little project on a campus somewhere?  Sure you can build a rudimentary OS with 10 people like a University Prototype for some class project but LOL!

The majority of security threats are to Windows, why?  Ignoramises assume that it is because Windows Security sucks.  It doesn't.  It is the best!  MS simply has the hardest job because of supply and demand.  Everyone knows that 97% of systems run on MS platform.  You are a hacker.  Who will you target?  3% of the population, Macs, Suns, Linux, Unix?  That's like a terrorist who goes to Skokie and suicide bombs a convenience store instead of the World Trade Center in NYC.  That's why MS also has to employ the highest number of White Hats outside of the Government.  Do you know what a White Hat is?  Yet you can assume that you know anything about OS development and the true wonders that MS has achieved with Windows?  I couldn't wait to see how some Open Source platform would respond to the volume of targeted attacks that Microsoft faces daily.  The inefficient Open Source development platform would definitely aid their response in turn LOL

Microsoft will continue to succeed because they are the best at what they do.  They will continue to be the best at what they do because we have yet to see anyone even approach their achievements in the software community for consumer and business software.  When that day comes, and I see the comparable competition with my own eyes, I will start to worry about our friendly Giant.

This is paid blogging just to generate hits on the website right?

Are you kidding me?  Comparing MS to GM? Why don't you compare apples to Wonder Bras?

Do you know how many people are demanding that MS NOT SHIP ANOTHER version until the current perfectly acceptable versions are fixed, secure, and debugged? 

As for stocks, you better stick to your day job.  Your recommendation is the joke of the day with the real traders.

quick, name three!

While that comment about French companies was in the way of a joke,
since someone took me up on it:

Vivendi Universal was about 65 in 2001.

V hit 34.55 yesterday (split adjusted)

Although it is based in

Paris

, it has significant
operations in the

U.S.

and the rest of

Europe

.

Alcatel was about 38 in 2001.

It was 15.64 yesterday.

Sorry, 

Lyonaises
des Eaux isn't a company I follow, but I think two out of three show that they aren?t doing
extremely well, having lost a minimum of half their value in five years.

Of
course it depends on your definition of highly successful. (GRIN) AND FRENCH (GRIN)

Bear in mind that those numbers are in U.S.$
and don?t count inflation. When you hear that gold has doubled and housing has
gone up 200%, that actually means that the dollar has gone down in value.

Oil is different because it
is a supply-demand problem but part of that increase is also inflation.

If you count inflation then their performance is a LOT worse.

Reconlabtech

?As for stocks, you better stick to your day job. Your recommendation is the joke of the day with the real traders.?

Can you let me in on the joke of the day? I can always use a good laugh.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion of my trading skills, but WHAT stock recommendation did I make?

I don?t make stock recommendations except by accident. Mentioning a company doesn't constitute a recommendation that someone buy or sell the stock.

I mentioned Chrysler's success, but I don't even follow that company, I was referring to the vehicles, not the stock price (whatever it is now).

I mentioned Amazon.com merely because they are experts in inexpensive distribution.

In general, other than shorting GM a couple years ago, I spend most of my days trading FOREX and commodities along with some energy and precious metals stocks since they all profit from the incredible inflation which most people are ignoring. (I studied macroeconomics at a very old Ivy League school in New England and mathematics at another well-known school so I tend to think in numbers and money vs currency terms instead of whether I like a company's press releases.)

But if anyone thought I was recommending any specific stock investments, please ignore them.

I wouldn't even short GM at this point.

This article is completely stupid.

Lest anyone think they have wandered into a financial web site by
mistake, I wanted to point out that the only reason I keep citing stock values
is because that is the broadest measure of the value of a company.

Stock values are simply a good way of making sure we are all seeing the
forest and not the trees ? this is a special problem for security technicians
who are always seeing the various features and vulnerabilities of products and
sometimes fail to see the big picture.

GM had competition, Microsoft doesn't

GM had competition from Ford, Toyota, Honda, and a dozen others. Consumers had a real choice. To say that open source products are any competition for Microsoft is ludicrous. So many businesses are absolutely dependent on Microsoft, and have no viable alternatives, that Microsoft is safe for a long time to come. 

Why not viable? Open source and Linux are not a good idea for most businesses. Open source has no technical support. Forums staffed by the faithful isn't good enough when the future of your business requires your software to function properly. If it goes down and you can't figure out why, there has to be someone to call who can get it working again. If you've already invested in a technology like SQL Server, you aren't going to want to spend the time and money converting it all over to MySQL or Oracle. If your tech staff know Microsoft, and don't know Unix or Linux, you'd have to hire all new people who do know it--you don't want to trust your Unix system to a newbie. Finally, your users can barely understand Windows even though they use it at home; they sure as heck aren't going to get Linux.

To make matters worse, Microsoft keeps buying up the companies that make the software that businesses are already using. Great Plains is now owned by Microsoft, for example, and Axapta, and Navision, and Solomon. I hate Microsoft, personally. My background is Unix and I use a Mac at home. But there's no way I would recommend that my company move off of the Microsoft platform. We are far too enmeshed in its evil web of world domination.

Your GM and Microsoft comparison is perhaps relevant if we consider the GM of the 60s.  What first caused American auto makers to have serious competition was the so-called energy crisis of the 70s.  This event caused enough pain for the average user of the product for them to do something considered unimaginable.  That was to consider a Japanese car for the fuel savings.  These Japanese car companies then used quality as a differiencator to retain that market share.  Americans didn't initially flock to Japanese autos because of quality differences.  They really wanted to just plod along doing what they had always done.

Until some event forces Windows users to consider an alternative, no real threat to Microsoft will emerge.  Yes, they are cutting employee benefits, but that is more a sign of the times than an indicator of financial instability.  Even the GM of the 60s followed the general trends of US business.

wow. just wow.

comparing a company that essentially sells intellectual property to a company that sells cars?  Completely different situation.  If windows was open source, and we could all see how they make their product, then there would be reason to worry.  Other companies could take the best features of Microsoft's product, give it thier own twist, add their own features, and undercut them on the price. 

It's going to be a long, long time before anything overtakes Windows as the #1 operating system.  How many people do you know who can deploy/administer FreeBSD and OpenOffice on the enterprise level? 

61,000 employees, not 56,000.

thanks for the laugh.

Interesting question you pose. Though I don't agree with ALL of your assessments, the big question is pertinent just the same. However, I'd like to present another side to this story ... those who WANT Microsoft to fail... even at the expense of, well, great expense and effort.

I am contracting for a very large company that made a decision to basically outlaw .NET (it's on the "Restricted List" as a development tool in their company) and chose IBM's Websphere Development tools as the environment and development tool of choice. Why? The only unique reason I can see their "informed research" made the pivotal decison is because Microsoft could not trump IBM's claim of "cross-platform" portability.

While "cross-platform" is an admirable goal, let's see what the end result of this decision has cost in real work done.

********** More developers program in Visual Studio tools than any other in the world!

The company I just left, I can stand up in my cube and talk to a Microsoft developer in the next cube in front, the one behind, the one to my side ... I can go into another department and find a VB, ASP, VB.Net, ASP.NET,  C++, C#, SQL Server developer and address issues they may have already encountered.

I can go to the most extensive Knowledge Base in the world for help on most any Microsoft product. I can Google and find pages of links to code samples of ANYTHING I may want to do. I can go to the book store and find scores of books on Microsoft development products for $19.95 to $59.95. A company can find a Microsoft Products developer just about any day of the week to fill a need.

********** Now, I'm not going to bash IBM ...

I'm glad they are trying to compete. But, they are just not Prime-Time ready with Rational Application Developer yet, when it comes to the scope of how Microsoft makes this thing easy. IBM's Tool is VERY much more expensive to buy. It's installation is bloated, cumbersome and cryptic (and we thought Microsoft was bad).

I called IBM customer support, and to their credit, they were helpful. But, let?s face it ... with a multitude of resources for Microsoft Development products; I don't need their tech support. I haven't called Microsoft Tech Support for their development tools since ... hmmm... I remember a case in 1998 or so, when ASP was evolving into the integrated environment level and was being used probably beyond it's ability at the time.

With ASP.NET, I built an Intranet website for this company (to display reports) in a day and showed them the prototype. It took them weeks to finally determine their top brass had deep-sixed purchases of Visual Studio.NET and another week to get IBM's tool to me. The site is not up yet.

I can't find a SINGLE book if Rational Application Developer in stock at the Barnes and Noble bookstore down the street. They could order me one, but the prices ranged from $69.95 to the mid $100's! Code samples are rare and there is little discussion on the web about all the types of tasks a developer might want to do. I stare at the Splash Screen when I start the Development Tool long enough that I take a break for water and come back. They have arranged the interface to be functional like Visual Studio, but rearranged it to make it awkward to use.

I hope you don't mind me telling you I sincerely hope your prediction of Microsoft demise is truly wrong.

The only thing I hate about Microsoft over the last few years is typing in that long-azzed Registration code for products I have to install.  ;~(

Keep asking the good questions and getting the varied responses!

"I'd like to point out that the federal government is turning more and more to linux"

more and more? from 5 boxes to 7?  i'm an admin for a large federal network, we have maybe 2 or 3 boxes running linux.

what part of the government are you referring to?

You cannot compare GM to Microsoft, it's a bad comparison.

GM has always had strong competition for it's main product lines from all of the other major manufacturers: Ford (let it be known that Ford wasn't the only main competition GM has faced over the years), Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, etc.   Microsoft to date doesn't have strong competition against it's main product line: Microsoft Windows.  Name another software vendor which makes an operating system that is used by the global majority (that means most of the inhabitants on this third rock from the sun known as earth) and show me that it makes comparable profits off of that operating system.   There are other operating systems: Linux in all it's flavors, FreeBSD, Solaris, Apple's OS X & previous releases, Unix (probably the only close second, although a distant one at that), etc, but none are as far reaching & encompassing as the MS Windows operating system & all of it's releases (this includes desktop, pocket pc & server os's).  

Add to that the fact that M$ has some $56 billion in liquid assets, name another company in that type of position to date - I can't think of one.  GE comes to mind but I don't think they have that much cash in the bank.

How else can you explain the fact that they're so successful even with market dominating complacency as you put it and loads of quality issues, delays in RTM schedules.  Employee benefits being cut are only sign of the times for many companies not just Microsoft, and M$ isn't doing this just to improve their bottom line, they're doing it to make sure they have employees that stick around for the long haul instead of employees that stick around, get rich in a year and leave afterwards, several years ago employees would literally get rich off the stock option plans that M$ provided, it's hard to hold on to talent when you make them so rich they can retire at a young age.

You want to call M$ a cash cow that seems to be slowing down because of it's immense size & weight, great go ahead.  But don't compare them to GM - that company has had problems for the longest time, never ever had the kind of liquid cash that M$ has at it's disposal, and will soon become a Chinese owned American Automobile manufacturer which will turn GM around and make it more profitable at the expense of it's existing labour force & product quality.

Heck I could start a rant on this topic that would never end but unfortunately I have to work during the day.

Bottom line, IMHO, M$ & GM is not a good comparison (although you will probably be hard pressed to find a good comparison), although some of your arguments against M$ are factual that isn't going to stop this company anytime soon.  It's too big a company that has stretched it's arms around this planet and won't be letting go for quite some time, probably not until the planet is renamed to something like "Microsoft Earth (stick in version number here)".

Hey, Tech Locksmith — the loonies have really come out of the woodwork in response to this one. Were you a lightning rod in a former life?

Good article. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the conclusion, but it is plausible at least. Keep up the good work, and don't let the destructive impulses of people with an inability to imagine weakness on the part of their favorite software vendor get you down.

  The problem with Microsoft is they have been TOO successful! They are and have been a target for not only their competitors...they are a target and threat to many governments and all levels. Their influence extends across idealogies, religions and borders. The democratization of Information is a threat that can not be tolerated.

Please do not misunderstand this to be a rant about consipracy theories, its a statement of facts, easily verified by the range and number of attacks for open standards, open code at the same time as requests are being made for Back Door access to security features.

M$ will be a target due to its size and the fact that in its current incarnation, it is resistant to influence. Gullivers travels is the model, today, once again..is the time and place.

Your analogy overlooks one key point.  GM's fall began with the rise of Japanese competitors like Honda and Toyota.  There aren't any Windows or Office competitors of that scale.  Linux is not analogous to Toyota.  I would equate it with something more like Fiat:  it's cheap, easy to tinker with, and has a devoted following to be sure, but on a volume basis it's never going to give MS/GM a run for its money.  Unless some new competitors (foreign or domestic) enter the marketplace with viable large-scale alternatives to Windows and Office, Microsoft isn't going anywhere.  You can bash them all you want for taking too long to come out with new versions (frankly I'm probably more upset when I plunk down $ for a new OS just to have it become outdated in 2-3 years...I'd rather see more updates and fewer version changes), but nobody's coming out with anything better on a mass scale.

Not sure that stream of consciousness business
analysis by a guy who is not a business analyst is very useful. Of course you
are starting from a ludicrous premise. MS certainly has some business
challenges but "about to collapse"? Come on. It would take many many
years of bad business decisions and blowing through a boatload of cash before
that question could even be considered. That's assuming that somewhere along
the line the company didn't realize it had to make serious changes (ie IBM in
the early 90's).
Also, as many posters have now pointed out, comparing software to cars or
comparing a media company to a mining conglomerate doesn't work.  
Having said all this, had you given the premise a long view (Will MS be around
in a dozen years?) and compared with a company like IBM, it would have been
very interesting.

As "Pickleman said" ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Microsoft isn't about to collapse.
No, open source won't take over the world.
No, there are no little green men living on Mars.
No, psychics can't really talk to the dead.

Any other stupid questions while we're at it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There's little new about this situation (MS vs. Open Source, etc.) really.  The most highly successful one is the target of a bunch of tomato throwing by the "competition".  I'll be concerned about MS "collapsing" when I can no longer walk into an Office Depot and find exactly what I need to do the job which is exactly what Microsoft products do - and with excellence, to boot.  Visual Studio, Office ... in a word OUTSTANDING pieces of work.  The biggest characteristic I read from all the other competition boils down to one simple thing: Envy.

-CodeBubba

allthegoodnamesweregone@...

Actually, both my lady and I used to work for the federal government and I just retired from 20 years of writing the Power User Column for Government Computer News. I also have a very nice thank you letter here from the ATF for helping on a research project so perhaps I have a broader picture.

There's NASA AMES, DoD?s High Performance Computing Modernization Program, the recent FOSE convention, etc.

http://appserv.gcn.com/cgi-bin/texis/scripts/gcn-search/search.html?client_id=gcn&qf.key=&frm_func=search&query=linux

As for intellectual property, what else is GM selling if not for design ideas? Most countries have shown the ability to build cars.

Check out the commercials ? are they selling a way of life? Or a way to transport yourself from point A to point B?

Most businesses are in the intellectual property business, not just the music industry and software vendors.

    Microsofts delay of windows vista is a ploy to bully others in the industry. Manufactures are now wondering what componets to make and struggeling to make projected earnings. Stock prices will fall because of this ripple caused by microsoft delay. Is it better to stay on bills good side? We shall see.

Shorne

Actually you might be surprised at my background in business analysis.

I did study business for a while  - coincidentally the same place Mr. Gates went to school, and happen to know several GM engineers as well as people at Microsoft so I?m not speculating entirely in the dark here.

But no, I certainly am not one of those talking heads who show up on business shows to make stock picks. I long ago noticed that they go on to the shows year after year; the host always reviews their past picks which are almost always very disappointing - usually one great pick, several mediocre one, and one real stinker; then the host hypes them a bit and asks for their new recommendations.

But to address your comment directly, I have noticed that Microsoft HAS blown through a lot of cash (remember the dividend ? a failed attempt to bolster the market value of the stock?), AND made a lot of bad business decisions.

Microsoft is also essentially a one idea company ? it was a good idea ? Windows, but it was just one idea. There was also Mr. Gates' marvelous business idea of retaining ownership and licensing the OS, but that wasn't a product idea.

MS-DOS wasn?t really new, just an improvement. Windows wasn?t entirely new, but it was a vast improvement ? enough to make it a new idea.

But what else has Microsoft done other than essentially invent Windows and all the software needed to develop for the platform?

While you may have a broad view of it, mine is by no means narrow.  While Ames is primarily a linux-based environment, it's the only NASA site that can be said for (it's also the smallest) and will likely end up behind the curve once NASA gets everything they have planned in place.  The *nix based servers are for the most part being phased out.  The Army, including reserves, is headed toward a full windows environment, with a handful of exceptions, of course.  I can't say i know much about the FBI/ATF/other networks but i would at least assume they want to head in the same direction.  but that may not be possible due to money issues.

driving a car and operating a computer are two totally different things.  the steering wheel works the same way, the gas and brake pedals work the same way.  if all OS's worked the same way, it might be a good comparison.  GM is failing due to horrid management practices for 40+ years

I think your comparison is a little flawed. GM builds cars. Anyone can build cars. Microsoft builds Software. So far, no one has come along with the expertise to challenge them in this area. (When one does come along, MSFT simply waves enough money under their noses to make them go away, without their product)

You also do not mention the one thing that has hurt GM the worst, the Union. GM and Ford?s primary competition, the Japanese are not saddled with unions. They can afford to build cars with higher degrees of quality because the people who build the cars work for about thirty percent less than American auto workers.

The title of this article is "Is Microsoft
about to Collapse?"  Then later in the article you state "Now I?m
not saying Microsoft is on the verge of collapse; it
certainly isn?t."  So the point of the article is to draw
comparisons between GM and Microsoft.  I think a far more
interesting topic is the huge difference between the software industry
and the automobile industry.  The software industry is a
completely different business model.  For example, once Microsoft
creates a software product, copies of the product from that point on
are essentially free. Their profit margin is outrageous.  GM, on
the other hand, has to design the car, and from that point on, copies
of the product are always very expensive in relation to the purchase
price.  Their profit margin is tiny by comparison.

One other thing. The passion and zeal for Microsoft in these posts is
almost scary.  If Microsoft fills your needs, great.  But be
aware that blind allegiance can lead your business down a path that
will severely limit your options in the future and will make you
vulnerable to competitors employing disruptive technologies.

While all of your comments may be true, how likely are you to switch to Linux or Mac? And for those of you who said "I already have switched to Linux", you represent a very small portion of the entire market. I'm willing to bet that even though you may have switched to Linux, that you still use or own a Windows PC, which kind of defeats the purpose of switching. When it comes right down to it Windows rules the market, and they are not going to be leaving anytime soon.

Very thought-provoking article. My thoughts:

1) I take exception to the "enormously bloated, expensive, and resource-hungry SUVs" statement: a) GM autos in general and SUV's in particular are considerably cheaper than their Japanese or German counterparts. b) I get 14 mpg in town, 23 on the highway in my V-8 GMC Envoy. It actually gets better highway mileage than any 6-cylinder passenger car I have ever owned. c) I like enormously bloated vehicles for me and my family. My wife, both children, and I are all 6 feet tall or better. I can't sit upright in most passenger cars. My teenaged children will definitely be driving large vehicles while under my roof. It isn't worth getting 30 mpg in a sardine can if the paramedics have to dismantle your car to get you out of it after some drunk runs a red light and T-bones the driver side.

2) My SUV has more than 5 computers on it. I WANT them to spend 3-5 years developing their products before releasing them. How many times have you heard people complain about being paid beta testers for software that was rushed to release before it was ready?

3) GM's employee overhead is not a product of their over-generosity. Unions have a stranglehold on American car makers (Yes, I live in an open shop state- Texas). Later in the article mention is made of employee benefits being reduced as a sign of fiscal weakness. I rather see it as undoing excessive overhead the unions imposed on GM. Same thing happened to many major airlines- they were almost union-benefitted to death.

4) GM got where it is by being at the right place at the right time. The creation of the interstate highway system is one of the biggest infrastructure advances of the last century. GM was there to fill the need for additional autos that was generated by the phenomenal change in the transportation system during that time. Same thing applies to Ford, being the first major mass-producer of self-propelled transportation devices in America early in the 20th century.

5) Much is made of MSFT's status during the last few years. How does this compare to the computer technology sector in general? Remember the "Dot.Com SuperBowl" a few years back? More than half of the commercial time during that game was bought by internet and computer- related companies. MSFT probably looked pretty good during that time period. How many of you lost IT jobs a year or two later?

Interesting premise... actually something I've blogged about in the past as
well.

What *really* amazes me is the number of people whose hackles go up, and whose
brains shut down as their mouths (ok, fingers) engage and are unable to
think past the status quo. I'll openly admit that I don't like Microsoft. I
don't like people who blatantly abuse the law and harm industry-wide innovation.
I don't like people who use their size and power to crush smaller companies
and steal their ideas. And I don't like people who defend the bullies by saying "but
everyone does it" or "you think they're the only one" or "yeah,
but even Apple stole ideas from Xerox PARC!" All true, but we're not discussing
Apple, we're discussing Microsoft.

I do think the GM analogy is incomplete, however, because at some point
in GM's past, their product was the key to their success. In the case of
Microsoft, however, they have never had a product-based business model.
Their business model has always been based on controlling their partners, competition,
and customers through brute force, litigation, and monopoly power.
How else can a company that produces inferior and ungainly products control
the market? Unfortunately for them, the world is taking notice and taking steps
to force them to behave... effectively stripping them of their business model.
And now, after 30 years of shoddy workmanship, unrelenting litigation, and brutally
stifling the market, they're trying to engender warm fuzzies by presenting
a "kinder, gentler
Microsoft."

DOS gained power because IBM licensed it and replaced the Selectric typewriters
of the world with PCs. That gave MS enough money to buy power and an "in" to
almost every desktop sold since then. So the success of Microsoft isn't
even based on their own work, it's based on a typewriter line from a another
company altogether. It was winning the corporate lotto, but that's all it was.
Since then, they have worked very, very hard at sniffing out anything that may
pose a threat, stealing the idea, and dragging out the court cases till the
opposition died. By leveraging their marketshare to stifle processor innovation
at Intel. By threatening the viability of PC business units at HP, Dell, et
al, by threatening to increase fees or pull licenses altogether if these manufacturers
sold a system with a competing OS.

In terms of product development, MS has consistently released poorly crafted
software based on what could be most easily stolen or bought. The choice
between licsensing a better product or writing their own (or "acquiring" something
they could own) has consistenly yielded an array of MS-owned products that
don't work as well as the alternative while being pressed on their customers
as "the
only way it can be done." Every link in the chain was another step toward
dominating their customers' IT business units for their own gain, not for
the benefit of their customers and, in fact, many times producing an inferior
solution that was substantially more expensive to maintain than the alternative,
implemented by well-trained personnel would have been. Everything they've ever
produced has marketshare based on ruthless control, not on quality. Now that
their business model has been taken away by governments around the world, they're
floundering, hemorraging marketshare to alternatives that they once would have
simply buried in legal briefs till they suffocated.

If you want an example of a very large and successful company with the opposite
approach, look at 3M. Their network of innovators and partnerships with
smaller firms is huge. They're twice the size of Microsoft. They innovate.
They adopt new ideas. They have no need for Napoleon Syndrome, and the world
has benefitted as a result. In contrast, Microsoft has done more damage
to innovation and progress in the IT sector than any company that's ever
existed.

Had Microsoft not taken the perspective that crushing a better idea to forward
your own, that controlling their partners by threat of financial harm, and
that their customers' needs are less important than their ability to dominate
an entire industry, I might very well have my flying car today.

Thumper1

I didn't mention GM's staff problems?

What do you think this meant?

"GM has far more employees than it needs to produce what people
actually want to buy and, compared to other workers with similar job skills, GM
pays them far too much.

A major problem at GM is the way they offer guaranteed
lifetime employment ? not a recipe for encouraging innovative employees. GM
even has to continue paying workers who aren?t working, to the tune of about
$120,000/year in total costs."

Thanks for contributing.

Can't Live With 'em? Can't Live without 'em.

There are many reasons to love and hate Microsoft (As some do their wives) but the fact is we do have to live with them whether we use their product or not.

The only way Microsoft will fail is if a sudden and radical change in technology occurs that would make MS and its products obsolete.

As was commented on earlier, Microsoft doesn't plan on failing and is establishing R&D and development outposts in India and China, exponentially increasing their think tank at a much lower cost.

I use Micrsoft products from DB development to Network architecture to writing notes to the lovely wife.

Does MS stifle innovation? No. If you ask me the best minds want to be better than the biggest boy on the block. And that means a lot of hard meditation on what you can do to be more innovative. (even if they do eventually gobble you up with a handsome sum of money)

MS has hired some of the greatest technological pioneering minds of our age to help them with their vision.

Investments? One day MS will spin off one of its businesses and I bet that will bring about the competition that MS has long been waiting for, and we all can put our money on.

Industrial Controller

 Actually, you make my point for me. Yes, duplicating
software is easy and cheap. Hence the barrier to entry is very low and a savvy
competitor can come along and displace Microsoft much more easily than someone
can build a hundred gigantic car factories.

 I don?t see the competitor yet, but MS is in a very shaky
position.

 And,
BTW, the profit margin on SUVs and trucks is the highest in the industry ? that?s
why GM makes them.

I am glad to see a view comments were some people actually have their head screwed on straight. However, I am quite frankly tired of Microsoft bashing on one side and just as tired of Microsoft extremests on the other. Some people hate them because they are too big and other can't see how Microsoft can do any wrong. Won't everyone just give 'em a break!

They are just about like any other for proffit company. They create products and sell them for a proffit. If you like their products then buy them. If you don't then DON'T buy it. I've heard arguments how Microsoft stole Internet Explorer from Netscape, NT from Novell, Pocket PC from Palm, etc. Hey, get over it! That is competition.

I was a Netscape fan for years. I didn't like Internet Explorer because it stunk. But when MS released IE 5 it had better features than Netscape and Netscape crashed all the time. It wasn't Microsoft who killed Netscape. It was Netscape themsevles, they didn't innovate and they fell behind the competition.

I also loved Novell at one time and I didn't like Windows NT. But when Windows 2000 came out and I saw how easy Active Directory was, anyone would be crasy to keep wanting to support a slow bloated Novell Client. So I switched to Active Directory and I haven't looked back. The funny thing about Novell, the last time I check the Novell server was still sitting on top of a DOS kernal. Novell died because they didn't innovate not because Microsoft killed them.

I still use many non-Microsoft products because like them better. I still use Quicken and I have a Palm. That is not to say that Money and the Pocket PC aren't better. Is just like the features better at THIS TIME. In the future if the competition doesn't keep innovating they will fall behind and I'll start using the Microsoft product. But please don't blame Microsoft! Once again it is all about competition.

BTW. Hats off to Quicken because they in my book have done the best of anyone to stay either with or ahead of Microsoft in innovation. They still have a very strong share in their market even with Microsoft competition. Way to go, so far.

As for Microsoft collasping, I think it isn't going to happen anytime soon. They may fluxuate up and down. But they aren't going anywhere. Sorry.

Delphidoc

I like big vehicles too. I still drive my restored 75
Lincoln and our everyday family vehicle is a Chevy Astro ? of course that?s due
in large part to the fact that it is the ONLY 4x4 van and my grade school chum
owns the GM dealership in town.

That doesn?t stop the Lincoln from being bloated and
resource-hungry or GM from being on the verge of bankruptcy.

Would I have bought the Astro if it got 25 MPG instead of
15? Sure, as long as I could still get the miniature horses into the back. In fact, given the option I would have opted for a smaller, more efficient engine in the Astro.

Lots of people use Windows, that doesn?t mean it isn't bloated and resource-hungry or make it the best
possible OS.

 Yes,
tightening up employee benefits is a good business move, but you don?t do it if
your company isn?t in trouble, it causes dissention among the troops.

If people could switch from using Windows to something else as simply as they can switch  from one car to another you'd have a better argument. But its not that easy and so MS is likely safe for a while. But they may shrink considerably in the near future. I can remember when the entire company would update to the lastest version everytime there was a new release. Thats not the case any more. We(a large DOD company) are still on Windows 2000 for the most part and there is a lot of push back to upgrading. MS is likely to see less profit down the road but not because of people jumping ship. That said, where I work we have moved most of the servers off of Windows and on to Unix. It cut down on headaches and maintence by a great deal.

But what can we learn?

Just a reminder so we can keep this discussion more on point, here
are some definitions of ANALOGY:

a process of
reasoning whereby two entities that share some similarities are assumed to
share many others.

an inference that if things agree in some respects they
probably agree in others

a comparison between two things that are alike in some
aspects, inferring that they will therefore be similar in other ways.

The common threads of all definitions of analogy are that the
things compared are never IDENTICAL, they are similar in SOME more or less important ways.

All the enjoyable and interesting posts which mostly point out the fact that my comparison between
GM and MSFT isn?t PERFECT seem to miss the basic concept of what an analogy is. Most people can tell the difference between a car and an OS. For one thing, if dropped on your foot, the car will probably cause it to break. The average OS will probably just cause a bruise (although I do remember a shelf full of SCO documentation which could kill a small horse if dropped on one.) The question is, can we find any ways in which Microsoft's position is similar to the one which GM was in a decade or so ago? If so, will Microsoft find itself as embattled in ten years as GM finds itself now?

Analogy is a way of
comparing the similar parts to see if it provides any insight into how other
parts may turn out to be similar.

Rockinra,

I'm not talking about the big things that we see. When I say that Microsoft
has stifled innovation I'm not referring to Novell. I'm referring to the
thousands of patent lawsuits in the mid and late 90s over concepts that
Microsoft stole... like .avi video (which was impressive in 1996) which
was patented by a small company in California (I believe they were from
Venice Beach, but I'm not sure). Microsoft simply used it without license
and then used the court system as shield, drawing out the litigation until
the firm folded and MS smiled all the way to the bank. This kind of abuse
was a weekly even in industry headlines throughout the 90s. During the big
Microsoft court case in the US a few years ago, HP and Intel testified that
MS threatened them with reprisals should they make any kind of move that
would jeopardize Microsoft's stranglehold on an already stifled industry.
HP (and Dell, and Gateway, and all the rest) was warned that, should they
release a Linux desktop they would face dire consequences in terms of license
revocations, increased license fees, and other anti-competitive threats.
Intel was warned that, should they threaten the linear progression of x86
hardware development they would face similar reprisals.

Microsoft didn't steal IE from Netscape, they wrote an inferior and totally
worthless product that they (eventually) almost got sort of right. I'll
believe that IE 7 isn't another disaster when I see it.

So yes, they have stifled innovation... that's not even debatable, nor a question
of opinion. It's a matter of court record. They lost a monopoly case (and
faced mamby-pamby consequences... bah) because their core business model
was one based on the ruthless stifling of innovation and competition. And
now that they can't do business that way their flagship product has faced myriad
delays. Their marketshare is dropping. Their only defense against many alternative
solutions is to disseminate pure FUD about the competition (more of the
same for Microsoft marketing) and hope they can scare people away from them.
The other pillar upon which they base their business is companies whose
investment into MS technology is too high to change to an alternative now.
The interesting thing is that, for the first time since PCs became ubiquitous,
anyone purchasing a new computer has a valid choice, OSX or Linux on a Mac
or a PC... take your pick.

Hello.
I found your comments about Microsoft very interesting. I, too, believe monopolies to be devastating for both consumers and (although only visible in the long term, as in GM's and MS's case) companies alike. However, there are some points with which I profoundly disagree:

"A major problem at GM is the way they offer guaranteed lifetime employment – not a recipe for encouraging innovative employees. GM even has to continue paying workers who aren’t working, to the tune of about $120,000/year in total costs."

Classical libertarian/neoliberal nonsense. Although funny, since almost every book I've read on Japanese-style management says exactly the opposite - that guaranteed lifetime employment IS A BIG INCENTIVE!!! I myself may be an example. I don't know in the USA, but in Mexico at least economic situation ensures companies an endless flow of job applicants, so they feel free to fire people whenever they want or to reduce their income at wish - there will ALWAYS be people around who will work the same or more hours (my work-day has usually 12 hours, in the last 3 years I've worked everything from 10 to 16 a day) for less pay. Do you believe it's really that nice to come work, not knowing if tomorrow you'll have a job?

My father too has to worry - in his late 50's, he's way too old to find a new job (most companies prefer people in their 20's or 30's, who can be exploit... er, I mean, who can work more for less), and 20+ years in his company don't give him any peace of mind, coworkers of him have been sent to the street with 30 years or more at the slightest mistake. Do you really believe you can TRUST the company you work for, or have LOYALTY towards it, knowing in advance they have no loyalty whatsoever towards you? That no matter how much you've worked for them, what success you've deliverd or how much time of your life you've given up, you can be laid off any time the CEO pleases? I've found the increased productivity of Japanese companies natural - people tend to work harder when they feel safe at work, and even harder when they know their increased effort will result in direct benefits to them, such as in Japan (where not everything a boss says is done if quality circle finds it's counterproductive, no pointy-haired-bosses allowed)

"Last week’s riots in France (many of us know how wonderful it is to deal with French shop employees) were triggered by a new law which would make it possible to fire a new employee within two years without going to court. (Quick - name three highly successful French companies.)"

I'm sad you don't read the papers/Internet well enough. The law says only that YOUNG PEOPLE (understood by these law as anyone younger than 26) can be fired AT ANY MOMENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION within the first 2 years. This law is unlawfully discriminating young people (are 24's or 25's inherently less responsible than 26's? why? which study or respected psychologist investigator determined it?) and also puts employers at mercy of employers.

It says nothing about courts, it states that "la jeunese francaise" doesn't even deserve an explanation, which runs also against common sense, ethical conduct in business (even rightist/neoliberal Jewish organization Aish.com says this every now and then in it's column "The Jewish Ethicist": you MUST warn employers in advance of their short commings before firing them and give them at least one chance to correct behaviours) and also against current French workplace regulations.

By the way, 3+ succesful French companies:
BIC (at least in Mexico, their pencils and pens are wildly popular)
Peugeot
Renault (they aren't as good as they were/could, but here they are)
Carrefour
Alcatel (yes!! they're French!)
Lanc?me, Gardnier, L'Or?al, etc (which woman can live without make-up?)
not to mention the veeery long list of wine-related companies...

Other people have already mentioned some of the big French companies.  Here are a couple big French companies that even Americans are familiar with:

• 
  Michelin
• 
  Dannon

I think those two are pretty good examples.

I just have to correct some misinformation posted by "rockinra":

I also loved Novell at one time and I didn't like Windows NT. But when
Windows 2000 came out and I saw how easy Active Directory was, anyone
would be crasy to keep wanting to support a slow bloated Novell Client.
So I switched to Active Directory and I haven't looked back. The funny
thing about Novell, the last time I check the Novell server was still
sitting on top of a DOS kernal. Novell died because they didn't
innovate not because Microsoft killed them.

1) The *company* is Novell, the *server product* is NetWare.  Thanks.
2) eDirectory was out long before AD, and is still more robust and scalable than AD.  That's part of that innovation they "didn't do."  MS had never heard of a directory when NDS came out.
3) I've never had a problem with the Novell client - perhaps you didn't know how to configure it?  As far as bloated clients, lets talk the MS client...
4) Repeat this 100 times:  NetWare DOES NOT, and NEVER DID, sit on top of the "DOS kernel".  I get so sick of people who don't know what they're talking about perpetuating this garbage.  NetWare runs on - are you ready? - the *NetWare kernel*.  Or, these days, the linux kernel, take your pick.  DOS is used ONLY as a boot loader.  It could just as well be linux or anything else.  It's there to load server.exe.  Once loaded, NetWare takes over the hardware, and DOS is shoved out of the way.  You can even unload it from memory if you want, it has no effect on the server.  Get it?  One more time - NetWare does not "run on DOS", it runs on the bare metal.  I really wish people would figure out what the hell they're talking about before posting it publicly.
5) Novell isn't dead, it's a linux company now.
6) As for innovation, Novell has always been about nothing but innovation.  eDirectory, ZENworks, iPrint, iFolder, BorderManager, the whole history of their product line is one of truly excellent products developed by Novell and, usually, winning all the relevant technology awards.  Microsoft, on the other hand, is the company that does not innovate, but steals other company's ideas and then crushes the competition - often through monopolistic practices, which is why they are a convicted illegal monopoly.  NetWare lost out, not because of any lack of innovation (I still run my network on NetWare, which provides the full range of web services, and will continue to do so, along with SuSE in the mix, for years to come - and which, BTW, is a huge security advantage to me, because no one attacks NetWare deliberately and the (anti-MS) script kiddie tools don't work on it), but because of superior MS marketing (god help them, the one thing Novell could never figure out is how to market), MS FUD, and MS's illegal monopolistic practices.

Sorry for the tangent on the blog thread, but I had to get this off my chest, as "rockinra" doesn't have a clue what he's talking about in regard to Novell and NetWare, and apparently learned it all from Microsoft.  Watch out for that FUD, rockinra, it'll trip you up every time.

Let me start with one comment on what I've seen in the responses and
then I'll respond to the topic at hand.  The amount of ignorance
about FLOSS and Free Software is staggering.  First I'd like to
mention Free Software does not suggest it is free, as in free
beer.  It means the software is free as in free
intellectually.  Further, FLOSS is not more suseptable to abuse
due to peer review.  It's pretty easy to notice when somebody has
snagged your code and tried to use it outside the GPL or FLOSS
EULA.  FLOSS also means that code can be reviewed more quickly and
by more eyes than closed source.  Plus the benefit of open source
is that 3rd party modules can be created quite easily.  With
community oversight it is easy to pick and choose. 

It seems like many IT folks are so averse to choice that they'd rather
stick with a kludgy OS than move to an OS with choice to it.

As for the government moving to Linux, yup...It's happening.  The
NSA is using SELinux (and releasing modules for it), the government has
also certified Red Hat and various apps to be used.  Just because
you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

As for MS:

The bottom line is MS is acting like IBM in the mid/late 80s.  MS
doesn't care about innovation, development, R&D, or anything of the
sort.  MS cares about soaking the consumer for the most amount
possible for the longest time.  Sounds VERY similar to the IBM
days.  What's going to happen?  Simple economics. 
Consumers will find substitutes for MS.  It's already
happening...there is a HUGE push towards Linux (and even Unix to some
extent).  The city of Munich is the first, but won't be the last
to migrate away from MS because it is just too costly.  Ya, that's
right...No matter the FUD, various independent firms have verified that
the TCO and ROI with Linux IS better than MS.

My suggestion to MS.  Get on the ball, innovate and deliver. 
Your customers are not just a number, but the people who keep you in
business.  Don't force manufacturers to do stupid things (ala the
driver signing mess)...give the consumer a choice and you might be
surprised....esp if you actually go back to what you do best...innovate
and standardize.

The main reason GM is so bad off now are the unions. GM didnt want to offer someone a job for life but was forced to. No one has a job for life at MS. Another thing to look at is the sheer size of MS's user base. With that many installations, you need a huge support and development team.

• download a copy of the latest Knoppix LiveCD,
• test out KDevelop/Quanta/Bluefish in writing C# code,
• check out the ASP.NET and C# 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 supplied documentation
• press Ctrl-Alt-F2/F3/F4 and then F5 (for simultaneous shell switching to a) compile the code using Mono mcs, b) export a WMF file to Flash Video (FLV) using ffmpeg, and c) install a copy of Plucker to convert a folder of web pages to Plucker format)
• export a long OpenOffice Writer document to PDF and SWF

• I didn't need to purchase a MSDN subscription
• I have code hinting in Linux that supports the latest .NET platform
• I have an Office platform on which I can deploy XForms and connect to MySQL directly or via JDBC (no need for slow ODBC)
• I could export to PDF and SWF without plugins!
• I can use a slower computer with the LiveCD (with VS2005 man, I couldn't do that)
• My IDE-generated code is Web Standards compliant (unlike VS2005 which can't even hit XHTML 1.0 compliance)
• I can see SVG in my browsers (both Firefox and Konqueror)
• I can compile ASP.NET scripts, Windows .exes and DLLs... on Linux!

• I could fire off an Active Directory domain controller using Samba as well off the CD (just in case you try to sing praises about Windows Server 2003)
• My LiveCD could interoperate with Windows very well, so isn't that a good benchmark of quality?
• My LiveCD is the cost of a download and a DVD disk!
• My Windows-sworn colleagues are quietly turning to OpenSource for all sorts of functionality which cannot be found on Windows.

The most obvious difference between GM and M$ is that GM don't own the road.
I remember when IBM "owned the road", and when a new "road" - the PC -
emerged, they lost their dominant role. M$ manged to survive the
appearance of another new "road" - the Internet - and are now trying to
develop a product that will shackle Internet users to M$ in the same
way Office did (and MSN didn't) - M$ Live. M$ Live is neat, it allows
third party developers to build applications in an almost open source
way, but with control, and revenue, still securely in M$ hands.
The "lock in" model that Bill Gates has used so successfully in the
past may be obsolete, and I suspect that the open source model will
prove more efficient at giving users what they want, when they want it.
Unless M$ can reinvent itself as open source, as, say, Ingres has, it
can only fight a long, grim, rearguard action until there is nothing
left to fight for. It could take decades. But then I thought the USSR
would last another half century.

Damn, I better cancel my plan to become an MCT...

 
Seeing as M$ is in so much trouble how will I ever recoup the investment?
 
Blah hahahahha....
 
Sorry, I know this sort of sarcasm is better suited to slashdot but I couldn't help myself...

"Linux is open source and programming code is available to anyone -
so be it. BUT IT IS NOT SECURE. You have the source code for any
version out there and that means that anyone can screw around with it."

And thats' VERY secure. That you can srew around with it any way you like, is not the same as getting everybody to USE the screwed up code. You still need to upload that code to one of the distribution servers, or sending it as af faked mail. Even in that case it would be very difficult to spread your virus.

"Microsoft are upfront when there is a problem, and fix it asap. They
also scan releases to check for other bugs and security issues. No
other software supplier except for anti-virus developers release
updates as often."

No comments, except an advise to open your eyes and have a look at what's happening. Read some of the posts. Right now we have an unpatched IE hole which MS don't want to patch so somebpdy else did it. A month ago same thing happend with the WMF issue.

No credit if it is not due.

rgds

Peter