ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

A Fountain of Youth for Microsoft?

Time: 12:06 EST/17:06 GMT | News Source: Business Week Online | Posted By: Robert Stein

"What we've got in the [product] pipeline now is probably more exciting than what we've ever had," Gates says. "You can expect big breakthroughs in the years ahead." Microsoft executives speaking after Gates talked up prospects for everything from online advertising to mobile devices to software for running small and midsize businesses. Ballmer said Microsoft innovations will help the giant increase operating income faster than rivals and the industry. But he didn't highlight revenue growth.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 314
Last | Next

The time now is 7:24:38 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 11888 (64.230.88.183) at 8/2/2004 1:08:42 PM

Yes it is. Although usually he tosses in "we're betting the farm on <product x>".

#2 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/2/2004 2:10:47 PM

Yup, the same position that amased nearly 60 billion in cash and a market capitalization that is hard to imagine.

The same position, opposite the same types of products that fuel a very large percentage of not just technology related third party businesses, but a staggering percentage of businesses, professions and individuals regardless of type or language.

All driven by curious and inventive people working toward common goals and against a common set of shared values.

It appears to me that the pitch is underwritten by a lot of pragmatic elements and some fundamental truth.

If I had the chance, I'd send a sincere thanks to MS, for creating a lot of opportunities for small companies like our own - without their products and tools, it would not be practical.
OSS does not generate the same kind of opportunities for small tech companies that we can see.

#3 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at 8/2/2004 2:20:13 PM

Wow. You should write the brochure :)

TL

#4 By 11888 (64.230.88.183) at 8/2/2004 2:32:46 PM

There's a single tear running down my cheek after reading that.

#5 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 8/2/2004 4:23:04 PM

#7 "The industry"? I assume you're referring to strictly the operating system client arena, and not like programming in general, which has been around far longer. Right?

#6 By 8556 (12.217.173.227) at 8/2/2004 4:31:50 PM

#6: You may want to consider changing your last sentence to read "some" in place of "all".

As a VAR and small OEM in a rural area with a few hundred small business's I must state that every time I ask a customer, business or consumer, what they want their computer (or small LAN) to help them achieve, not one has given me a response that indicates that Linux, or other OSS, would meet their needs. In fact, all the existing business's have so far required that they continue using existing software, Peachtree, ACT!, QuickBooks, Solid Works, etc. In every case there is at least one program that does not have a performance equivalent offset in Linux. I have even tried to convince farmers and homeowners that claimed to only want to use the web and e-mail that Linux is all they need, until a relative brings a Windows game over and it won't work.

I plan to start giving away copies of Knoppix Live Linux to the more savvy customers that have at least expressed an interest in Linux. Being able to fully run Linux off the Knoppix boot CD-ROM is a cool way to let them try it out. :)

#7 By 21055 (65.10.69.13) at 8/2/2004 8:49:02 PM

(slightly) off topic: how much basic research does MS do/sponsor? I mention this only to compare them to the old AT&T, who did a lot of mathematical stuff (and if memory serves, had a hand in unix), GE, and other "old line" tech companies.

even intel is participating in some of the nanotechnology research consortiums. So's IBM.

this is not a slam at MS, btw...i'm really just curious about weather they're only looking at things that will/might affect the bottom line in 5 to 10 years, and stuff that might take longer to come to fruition (if ever, basic research is like that).

#8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/2/2004 9:48:56 PM

I remember writing in machine language opposite a pair of 3390's and also watching how long and how much money it takes a lot of applications we port over to .NET to be developed by other means. It took days to do the simplest of things - though we did marvel at what we were able to do, it pales in comparison to what Microsoft has helped evolve. They deserve a lot of credit for that.

My point is, there many things one can quantify about Microsoft's contribution to both tech and non-tech companies and there is much one cannot.

To those that think just anyone can build software using any available tools - including MS's - I have to say, "Nah." There is a lot to it and a lot more than just code syntax and anyone who does even a little of it knows that.

I mean also, that the *nix have been around a long, long time - ditched for a long, long, time, too - I mean in Govt. we ditched it and wrote our own - for many of the same reasons I suspect many commercial enterprises have. The National Standard Technical Workstation was a *nix - it isn't any longer. So, along comes the OSS - not at all a bad idea, or even a bad implementation - except for one big problem...the GPLA...simply, it runs against one's ability to own, monetize and benefit from "property" a central element separating free from non-free people. As regards buy, or licensing property, by and large, people and especially businesses want a responsible party. That is a lot less clear in OSS and I think it is perhaps its greatest challenge. I read once in a very similar thread, "Yeah, but if one does not like x, y, or z....they can change it themselves...." uhh, well...uhh...no. Most companies, even huge one's don't work that way. Their IT staffs are covered up, and frankly a little worried about, "failing." Often they are so busy, or so entrenched in process, that they can't even breatthe - they do reach outside all of the time, send dozens of RFP's and take in help. I see it everyday and I see who is able to respond more quickly and what it costs - both sides of it. In some cases, Linuces and Java advocates are infrastrusture clients on one side, and "their" client is my client in a different development project. I would think this unusual, but I see the same thing in many such relationships. In each case I see OSS cost more, do less, and result in a lot of challenges that were not clear when the project began. I also see Windows systems take up a lot of slack, processing, logging, mapping, enterprise backup, archiving, etc... - that are too costly, or not as evolved in OSS. Grant it, my perspective is limited to what I see, but it can't be that far off from others.

#9 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 8/2/2004 11:02:37 PM

#13, agree totally especially on the last paragraph.

#10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/4/2004 1:44:55 AM

Lot's of good and valid comments here.

Now, I have seen developers, and I mean the best I have yet worked with - guys who author on order of 8, or 9 languages and their own IDL. I've seen them sweat and build buckets of grogeous code - and sadly, fail. I know, I just signed a note equal to a small fortune to give their owners some more "runway" and I still sustain their entire infrastructure. They are all OSS centric - Red Hat AS and Java - Oracle DB on Red Hat AS - just killer 6600's with 16 GB RAM - monsters, and dead broke. We support them in every way, and supplement their environment with every kind of service you can imagine. 5 years on one app! Five (5); nuts!

On the development side, [the other, .NET side], are my crew. Banging out massive ERP applications at the same time they are splitting the presentations layer - allowing full screen FLASH movies to interact in real time with applications servers and database servers - and back again - rendering out dynamic content within the FLASH movie as it runs! Ditching the kluge action scripts and replacing them with a mix of languages - all compiled ot the same intermmediate and then to a common machine language at first run - all on .NET and opposite hundreds of different clients - many at the same time. Demo at www.edentalrep.com - just a proof of concept. Just a huge mix of Dynamically Integrated Systems, or MS's DSI Model.

The group in para 1 numbers many more than in para 2. The group in para 1 has had access to millions. In para 2, the smaller group has had access to exactly what they have earned - no borrowed money and complete autonomy. I can tell you who is free of anything outsiders
have to say!

The difference has been the tools and agility in .NET and the much better integrated relationship between client, tools, development systems and production servers.

Like I have said many times, I worry about my guys; my ability to ensure that have all they need and good and steady work. I CANNOT DO THAT with OSS. I've seen it, and live it each day. I've seen OSS monetized - I just have not seen it turn a profit. The GPL may allow for that, but I have not seen it tested. Since many of our clients are large law firms, the ABA Litigator Committe and legal staffs within some of the largest corporations operating today, we do have access to that legal opinion - and all of them have advised me, "Stay away from OSS; one case, just one case and it is all over." Now these guys are serious "defenders" not complainant trial lawyers, but defenders against litigators. They despise boutique litigators, and they fear them. I just can't hazard my people that way - on OSS. I'd lose a lot more than a company and money if I bet wrongly, I'd have to watch that hurt people that have stuck by me for years.

#11 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/4/2004 11:50:11 AM

#18 Hi - we do exactly that - sans BSD, which I think would actually have been the better choice. That said, it isn't a matter of how to use OSS, it is a simple matter of how to help companies use OSS and make a profit. It is the saddest thing I have even had to observe - watching great ideas, fantastic software and most especially, people, fail. And fail big. Nost for lack of deals, business, or contracts, but because the operating costs are too high.

As for MS. We've been MS parners for years. They have always been right there with whatever we have asked for - including programming support, source files of all types. Their tools mayhave imporved recently, but a "just tell us what you need" attitude and posture are always there - always have been and long before OSS was spoken to at all. Even from tiny companies like us. No matter what we have asked for or about, we have never heard no, or anything smacking of closed or proprietary IP, etc... they just have said, "hey, try this..."

I don't think we are in any way special, either. We may be unique, but no different in many regards from a lot of small companies. I do know that what we put out there causes a lot of deaprtment heads to turn - more often than not they ask, "why haven't we done this before?"
I've had to watch this as the OSS group has worked too hard for too long and for too little.
The unified operating environment will likely evolve for OSS, but not in time for us to use it to deliver the kind of value customers are looking for. At least not from where we sit. From a purists standpoint, it is hard to argue against MS's value, too. I mean, the tools and the code are solid as stone and anyone who says otherwise just does not do a lot of development for business. Not saying OSS is not solid - it can be - depends on the dev team, but even in cases where the OSS dev is the best, it does not translate into profit for either client or developer. And that has zero to do with MS. It has everything to do with how mature the environment is. Unifoed environments are like that. Solutions require as much of an environment today as they do good code - NW engineers around here have to know code, and developers have to know the NW, OS'es and all elements equally well. That is the real difference we see and live each day. I have to SSH into a system and check on UAGENT satus, now. If you could, write back about examples...an exercise perhaps to show what you mean. That may help keep MS and others sharp and would be useful for all. Perhaps if we see it, we will understand more.

#12 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/26/2023 12:10:16 PM