| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
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 |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is the Microsoft Pipeline Now Officially Unblocked? | |
|
||
| Time: 17:24 EST/22:24 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft's top brass has become fond of saying that Microsoft's got a lot of innovative new products in the pipeline. But what they haven't admitted is that their pipeline' has been in serious need of some Roto-Rooting for more than a year. In recent months, whenever Microsoft was running late with a product, officials blamed Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) and/or tougher internal security criteria in general. So now that SP2 is officially out (it was released to manufacturing August 6), can we expect the slip-date blame-game to become a thing of the past? Hardly. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:41:25 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (12.217.111.74) at 8/18/2004 10:20:14 PM |
|
Late is their way. We expect it.
Late or early (ha!) their PR machine keeps MS in the public mindset all the time. |
| #2 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/19/2004 1:43:15 AM |
|
I think the Microsoft pipeline is very full and remains full.
Two, very often over-looked pieces as part of XP SP2 that had zip to do with security: 1) the very substantive enhancements to Tablet PC in Lone Star - they are pretty amazing improvments and 2) Harmony - the new MCE 2004 enhancements as part of SP2 - again greatly improved features and function. If you look across the board, from the IBF, and WSE 2.0, to Reporting Services, and as far away as Encarta and Digital Imaging Suites, etc... the amount of new software and new tools is pretty amazing - all well integrated with the platform, its servers and tools and online services of every type. I'm not sure there was much shortage of bandwidth in the pipeline of any kind. If they mean only Longhorn development, or Blackcombe...? I don't know, but I don't see how anyone could call those "slips" either - I mean no release dates have been held out by Microsoft that I have heard. We have not even touched on SP1 for office, but if you've even looked at the new InfoPath and OneNote, you'd see huge differences and new features. ...What of Portal Server 2003, Project Server 2003, SP1 for Exchange 2003, Live Communications Sever, Live Meeting's major changes and improvements? ....man, I just keep thinking of more parts of the platform,...Version 4.0 of Navision [over 3.70], its Analytics components, Axapta, the new Solomon...get my point? This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, August 19, 2004 at 01:44. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/20/2004 9:58:11 AM |
|
Most of the items I mentioned are already delivered. Many already exist in one version, but are continually being added to and improved. Navision for example, is huge in Europe and has very open development API's and tools. Same for Analytics - its companion.
As for not having investors...I disagree....stock/sahreholders "are" investors and free and open markets are brutal and unforgiving - irrational in this country where "Risk Capital" is treated as insured savings - with the courts being used to make idiots or the greedy "whole." Microsoft, more than any company, is treated most unfairly in this context. The markets, investors, and analysts do not follow their own math! They make sport of hammering MS Stock - exposing it to unrealistic expectations that they would never expose other traded companies to - less may be GE - but Gawd, GE is into everything from media to boutique capital lending institutions! It seems no matter how fat the MS pipeline is, or how fast products are delivered through it, the company will not be able to overcome largely underinformed morons from mis-representing or ignoring facts. I read a lot of this stuff, and have only this to say, "Gack!" Ok...this too, "If you do not like MS, MS Software, MS Tool, MS Servers, MS Clients, or MS personnel, then go use an alternative; start a company; write a new OS; use a different OS and for God's sake do it better. Based upon the merits of that work, allow it to gain, or not, market interest and then deliver any resultant value to whomever advocates it. I mean dad-gum, the Unices and all derivatives, pre-dated Windows...the people chose Windows and for good reason...they could use it without kissing the feet of some dork in a glass room set on a raised floor...Bill Gates and Microsoft's people did that for all of us...don't forget that. No dad-gum body I know wants to go back to the CLI, or some kluge X-Services crap piled on top of a monolithic cast-off from the seventies era of intellectual ping-pong with abstract ideas!." |
| #4 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/20/2004 2:59:34 PM |
|
The context of my remarks is pretty clear...the story suggests that the MS pipeline is in someway clogged, or slow and perhaps now that XP SP2, or rather XP2, has shipped that perhaps [but unlikely, as they suggest] the MS pipeline will begin producing opposite industry expectations.
I and others have listed enough examples of newly deployed MS SW and ongoing development to demonstrate that any assessment that the MS pipeline is/was/will ever be slow, is not a supportable position.... That leads me and perhaps others to assess what the actual motivation of the article is and what some of the posts on this site might also be - that is, criticisms that are not well supported, or comparisons to other SW houses' products that are simply not as evolved. This type of criticism is even directed at individuals who simply use MS SW and tools. Hence, my recommendation for people to do and use what they wish - while attending to the consequences for the choices they make - good and bad. Simple. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/21/2004 8:23:51 AM |
|
I suppose there is no OSS, or OSX Bong? No Linuces Bong? What is that all about?
I thought it was all about choice....but oh, I get it...unless one's choices exactly match your own...<insert bong remarks><insert personal attacks>... So, some don't like Microsoft, or its software, and they...um...come to an ActiveWin site and...suggest Win and MS advocates are in some way addicted to some kind of unknown substance in Microsoft's software? I suppose to show us how "open" and "tolerant" you all are? Or how enlightened you all are as we simply march lock-step toward the ovens? I fail to see any useful contribution such comments make. |
| #6 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/21/2004 1:41:24 PM |
|
Hal, there is a slight difference. Parkker is on a Win advocacy site. He consumes industry news [if one could call it that in many cases] somewhat relevant to Microsoft software. He shares observations and experiences relevant to his use of Microsoft software, and for so choosing and sharing the same, is engaged to defend both his choice and experiences opposite comments, for which their is no evident contributory benefit.
It is not as if this is SlashDot and Parkker is commenting in an inappropriate way to compell advocates of alternative platforms to move away from or not use a Linuces or an OSS Unices like Darwin [OSX]. I ask again, where is the contribution in such comments? I ask also, would it not be more valuable to share how we use the technologies relevant to each listed article, and in the context of the "platform" upon which they run and are integrated to? Perhaps also sharing solutions, objective criticisms and recommendations. Vague recommendations to use an alternative seem less valuable unless specific and relevant examples are provided - by this I do not mean a linkswarm to what are clearly non-scientific editorial opinion pieces, but "real-stuff" that the posters themselves create and or manage. Perhpas that is not the purpose of ActiveWIN - maybe it is PassiveWIN or NotWINButOSS - or just some place to bash other people and companies... I mean, some of the articles are so bad, they don't even rise to the level of propaganda. The article in the ref thread is an example of this. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/21/2004 8:42:39 PM |
|
Hal, if the replies and posts people provide are related to the subject and contribute in some way, then great - regardless of being for or against.
What I do disagree with is when the threads degrade to a series of personal attacks and just pure nonsense. I'd rather get and contribute something of value; something to learn from. This post was edited by lketchum on Saturday, August 21, 2004 at 20:42. |
| #8 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/22/2004 3:28:06 AM |
|
Hal, I spoke to what I reasoned this channel "ActiveWIN" might be intended for - discussions opposite MS SW and services - vice a forum for That which has little to do with Microsoft's platform or products - and where clearly, there are other channels on the same site dedicated to these other subject areas.
I'm not asking about any one persron's bahavior in particular - though I do see where Parkker is coming from and can understand why he is caused to react. I don't take the less contributory posts seriously, but would encourage as much beneficial discourse as possible. I mean many of us review this and similar sites - in most cases to catch wind of threats [at least in my case], that may not be addressed in other areas. So when the development is done, or frankly, I'm stuck and just moving through servers, etc... we review this and other sites. In the case of ActiveWIN, the posts were/are generally more thoughtful - as compared to say, neowin, where the posters appear to be younger and the posts much shorter - not much to engage with... My reasoning was that perhaps it might be possible to participate in such a forum and elevate the exchanges to a more useful and specific level - and in the context of the thread. For example, Windows security where as a whole the community might share how it is entirely possible to secure systems, or in the case of speech technologies [CTI/IVRU] integration, how to make real use of them. Increasingly, this industry's press has become more oped than objective and the posts have degraded. Where I assess 99.99% of all problems result from incomplete communications, it seems less helpful for people to simply contribute "....been the X, Y, or Z Bong, again..." That does not make much sense and isn't even entertaining - as some of the posts at neowin at least are. SlashDot is just a mess and full of more hate than anything else from what I see. So, I asked what the operators of ActiveWIN meant for this channel - perhaps it was not to facilitate active participation opposite Microsoft software. |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/22/2004 4:42:17 PM |
|
We define "intelligence" as the practical application of information, which we regard as prudent - the essence of prudentia and ironically, exactly as the word was originally derived and intended to mean.
In the context of many of the posts here, the recent comments by many and perhaps even the threads themselves, is either the application of practical information, or the absence of it. Perhaps in this is "an" answer. That said, very likely all of us, must answer to practical considerations opposite our chosen professions [assuming posting here is not the profession to which I speak :) ]. Many of us have chosen to use practical examples of work and in the context of the listed thread to share examples of how such practical considerations in the context of business processes and requirements have been addressed using Microsoft software, tools, servers, and clients. In so doing, and indirectly, we invite assessments and even alternatives. Here is where it seems to fall apart...against specific practical applications as presented within examples, one often is met with much less practically applied counterpoints. In some cases, broad platitudes suggesting the potential of OSS/the Linuces have been offered with relevant links to supporting material that are harder to equate practically. The invitation has been to share not just these broader examples, but specifc examples and details where OSS has been applied with equal practical characteristics. This resulst in a lot of frustration, because while many of us attend to these considerations each day - costs, professional talent, pay-roll, client expectations, etc... and there very likely are OSS examples that are equally practical, the examples are not shared as specifically. In some cases, where a history of sharing such practical examples has been established, these examples and subsequent posts are met with replies that are less practically centered - e.g., the "hitting some sort of Bong comments, or generalizations about the use of Secure Sockets..." Such comments will understandibly, cause people who "must" attend to practical considerations to react. Not measure of OSS editorial about its potential will lift Parkker's or similar peoples' responsibility to "do stuff" and "do it right now" and "within budget" - that is the source of both Parkker's choices and his furstration [if I may be so forward as to assess what these are for another professional]. Many of us share these considerations and realities. If you do, too, I ask, as I have, for alternatives which might allow more specific practical application to the same requirements used in some of my example. Thanks |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/22/2004 9:00:00 PM |
|
#38 Illusatrates some good points - personal experience and first hand knowledge.
That is what I have been speaking to - the sharing of exactly that - what we see and do each day that others might benefit from and that we can speak to directly when asked. It is most true, Micrsosoft is the very best at placing software arcoss its entire line in the hands of business partners and developers. Active partners get it all and a ton of support, documentation, source code, code snippets, code samples and deployable commercial software. They show a lot of class, too. Any seminar, event or modest contact and they give us software to use - 2003 Server Enterprise Edition with 25 Device and or User CAL's is nothing to sneeze at value wise - and free and given often in a retail box. When we tested Exchange 2003 Server from the start of its BETA to release, we were provided support as often as we wanted it - with tickets being open for weeks as MS engineers worked with us to make the product better. Once done, I bought an enterprise copy and hundreds of CALs and deployed it. I have to say, their development group for the product knew their stuff in ways we could not even imagine. They gave us dozens of admin tools and a great deal of insight to the product's development. When it was all done, we had the solid understanding of the product we needed and buckets of good information about how to best support hosted Exchanges. This is only one example, but we see this kind of thing all the time and each area we test product for. It helps when people share specific details they encounter each day. It is less relevant to most of us when the examples are not based upon first party experience. |
| #11 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/23/2004 12:22:36 AM |
|
Windows/Microsoft, or OSS, is doesn't matter, they all end up being proprietary solutions - Google's GWS 2.1 web server is a good example. More below...
The question then is which platform is best for the combined group of people delivering the proprietary solution. If for example the dev team is a Java shop, trained in C++ and the Unices in the former Yugoslavia, then one can expect a slant toward the Linuces, OSS libraries and the use of Apache, Tom Cat, and probably Oracle on Red Hat AS. I could go on for days about how dreadfully expensive the above example is. Dear friends of mine went down this path - to their peril. Now, I have been asked to port this out of this environment and onto .NET - to salvage some of the millions spent. It was never about what they could do in OSS, but when applied practically, it became about what they could not do easily or in a cost effective manner. I've given them hundreds of thousands in runway - and trust me, I cannot afford it. All else they need and use comes from me and is on W2K3 and MS. They watched as we did 600 times the amount of work in half the time it took them to fail. Needless to say, they don't advocate OSS any longer. Same is true of an actual rendering farm - see image here, http://lloyd.libertech.net/Shared%20Documents/Libertech%20Room%20for%20Mindspan%20in%20NJ.JPG This is one I built, including 24 of the 34 servers in it for a client who was running a Linux distro - and failing for the exact reasons Parkker sited above. Once moved to Windows Server 2003, it set records for rendering and a 2003 Challenge award and another from APC for infrastructure. Terribly costly Linuces systems on highly proprietary hardware were replaced with less costly and more powerful x86 hardware we also built - the content creation systems, etc... OSX is still there, but not an influential player - most have moved away from it for reasons of cost and better choices being available on our systems and Microsoft's platform. This of course applies to the OSX users in our networks. Again, it all comes down to the strength of the platform under a proprietary build - whether OSS is used at any level or not. Google isn't going to share its GWS web server any more than one of the companies above is going to give away its proprietary loyalty and rewards processing engine - though they may be compelled to because of such a wide use of OSS libraries. Same is true of anything done on Apple's implementation of Darwin - just read their agreement for a few moments - scary it becomes their property. Microsoft never lays claim to what we build in .NET - they respect one's right to own property. |
| #12 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/23/2004 11:32:32 AM |
|
Hal, the issue comes down to 1) the actual higher costs of developing on and supporting OSS and 2) the valuations companies depend upon to support the market capitlizations for everything from funding to equity events - that is after all the goal in most cases.
So under OSS, while one might retain the "results" of analysis in your example, they forfeit any advantage that would result from the work that produces the results. That is not a strong enough model for people when their advantage is rooted in part in their IP and investors who fund such development and companies are diluted. That exposes people to "competitive parity" which in any transactionally intensive business model is death. Competitive parity may be induced by many things, but take an example where one might sell a processing engine and or services as a value add to large card processors - if the code is given away, or one is compelled to, what prevents the card processor from simply doing the value add processing themselves. This is exactly what happened in the case of my friends and an investment of more than 5 million evaporated - all due to OSS. Yummy. It's market cap and ability to secure funding evaloprated and at the point when they could have capitalized on an investment, they lost nearly all ability to recover it. These are the cold and often harsh realities that attend the "practical" implementations one encounters out here. Right or wrong, that is what one encounters. |
| #13 By 23275 (209.149.207.31) at 8/23/2004 3:29:12 PM |
|
I''ll answer it this way Hal, I just signed a check with my own money for people using OSS who are dead broke and could not cover basic insurance costs! I live this, or along side it each day.
Those people are now covered again and not due to their use of OSS - but because of my use of commercial SW and our success in delivering value to small and medium sized businesses with it - and the odd small part we play for some really big companies. The very best minds I have ever seen leverage OSS, write even their languages [an IDL] for it - got their butts handed to them. While I will miss the cash, I will be able to make it up - owing in no small measure to commercial software tools from Microsoft. It does not get any more real than than that! |
| #14 By 23275 (209.149.207.31) at 8/23/2004 4:00:10 PM |
|
Hal, it may not be the case everywhere, but it has been the case in four out the four groups/companies I have personally seen and assisted.
In three cases we have succeeded in two tings, affordably moving them and also making them profitable. In the fourth case, the "burn" is so bad and so deep, it will take longer to make them profitable. It will however happen and it will happen with a mix of proprietary code written using .NET and the full weight and benefit of a mix of Microsoft software to manage their business processes [or BPM]. That BPM is what will turn them around as it has for the others and that BPM will be a mix of commercial software products that practically and at less cost, will allow them to run an effective company. These tools, used by the same people, will help them as it has helped the others/examples I am aware of. I can only speak to what I have seen, personally and influence personally - so naturally, any example outside of that would involve only my conjecture - death in business. |
| #15 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 8/23/2004 11:05:52 PM |
|
Hal, I hope you are using transparent English acquisitive case with your use of "you" in your last post - as opposed to "one is, or one isn't" because one thing I do know is my P&L and balance sheet and it's pretty green - so any speculation as to whether we'll [as a company] make it or not to the negative, would be a bad bet.
I know this, too...regardless of what technologies one integrates, or what tools one uses to fashion solutions in software, that one's success is dependent upon how profitably one can deliver these and control the costs of goods and services sold relative to what the market will allow. Now, I and my company have assessed and been proven correct [that P&L thing again], that using commercial software and tools to build solutions upon, inclusive of our proprietary software, is profitable and more affordable for our customers and represents a good value for them. While we are by no means the cheapest in any regard, the combination of many things allows us to consistently present a better value - one that treats a client's investment in technology not as an expense, but as an asset that can be monetized and result in increased earnings, or revenue subject to lower cost. Naturally, this is a balance, that a good ISV/Integrator helps a client achieve. I assess also that the use of OSS is a mixture and cannot be restricted to the use of a Linuces - that in fact, is the smallest and least significant piece - it is as if to say that an OS is an end unto itself. Clearly it is not. What is significant is what business processes and business process management one can deliver - regardless of platform, mix of platform components and certainly programming language. Now, if by virture of using a well integrated and diverse platform, I can more quickly, consistently and therefore more affordably deliver meaningful solutions, I can then also deliver them at lower cost and not just beat, but slaughter competitive arguements - where is matters most: at the P&L. If it is about choice and it should be, and the market supports it and each side benefits, how then can commercial software be judged to be worse than OSS as OSS presently exists? Personally, OSS offends me - again, just personally. It runs against any idea regarding the ownership of property. That in my assessment is essential amongst free people. In fact, as originally written, our founding fathers wrote "....and the pursuit of property...." vice "Happiness." It was agreed that they were one in the same. I say, use OSS, but use it to build IP that one can control. If/when it evolves as much as commercial SW, then perhaps we will use it, too. Until then, we'll use commercial SW and write IP that we control and can sell. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:41:25 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
