| 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 |
 |
Microsoft: Innovation key to PC profits | |
|
||
| Time: 16:26 EST/21:26 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
To revive flagging PC profits, the industry must focus on building improvements compelling enough to persuade customers to part with their money, Microsoft exhorted business partners Tuesday. "Innovation is the way to profit," said Jim Allchin, group vice president of Microsoft's platform group. "We haven't spent enough time...to get (customers) to take that next step, buy the next machine, buy the next peripheral, buy the next software." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 151 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:29:59 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.135) at 4/16/2002 4:47:51 PM |
|
Yes, innovation sure is the key to future PC profits.
However, Innovation means NEW, COMPELLING products. Not finding ways to re-sell the same old Windows and same old Office. This is the trap that Microsoft has got itself in to, and is responsible for most of the mess going on right now. Microsoft needs to quit force-feeding upgrades to Consumers and Corporations (whether by creative licensing changes, dropping support for older versions, financial penalties to those that don't upgrade on Microsoft's schedule, etc...) and get down to business writing new, compelling products that they can sell. Personally, I'd LOVE to see some new products out of Redmond, and I don't mean games. Others do that much better. TL |
| #2 By 20 (68.53.242.24) at 4/16/2002 5:08:40 PM |
|
It used to be just Video games were the "killer app" that forced hardware upgrades. That's still true today, but video/audio editing is also approaching that status.
I know I went out and bought a faster processor, hard disk, and firewire card so I can capture, edit, and publish videos of my son for my family. |
| #3 By 1658 (128.255.174.11) at 4/16/2002 5:39:16 PM |
|
I think this needs to be looked at from a slightly different angle personally. This comment doesn't relate 100% to the article, but I thought it was worth a little time. Here's my take...
It's not that we don't need the ever increasing speed of our processors, we do. However, agreeing with that statement requires a long-term thought attitude towards the technology industry in general. We are sitting in a position now for the first time in PC history really where the hardware architecture performance and cost has finally outpaced that of software. While software continues to advance quite rapidly, it is 'behind the power curve' when it comes to hardware now. While I must disagree with TechLarry's statement and practically every other statement he makes, Redmond is still pumping out tons of innovative ideas and new software, however, do they take FULL advantage of the PC's power? No. That answer is a no brainer. The power of the PC these days is now leaving developers with a question that was never quite one they could ask before: "What are we going to do with all this power?" The ever increasing speed of the machine, growing memory sizes and decreasing costs both in terms of semiconductor and magnetic media, more efficient manufacturing processes, advanced semiconductor improvements etc... are all required as we'll need them down the road. The industry is sitting at a point now where we can FINALLY develop the powerful speech recognition technology we so need and want. Facial recognition, games that are as crisp as what your own eye sees, full computer interactivity that allows you to immerse yourself in the experience... This ever increasing power will allow this now that we have the capability. For too long the application has sat ahead of the hardware curve aching for more power which has left developers in the unfortunate position of having to drop features for better experiences which is just the opposite of what SHOULD happen. Anyone who is a serious programmer knows that when extra power is available, there is ALWAYS a way to eat it up and use it for something worthwhile. I must disagree with the folks (no one here per se, but they're out there) that consider Windows XP for example to be too power hungry. It's about time applications starting eating up the enormous amounts of power we now have available that only keep growing. The idea that an OS should still need only 200 mhz of power and 64 megabytes of RAM like many Linux bigots still believe is just outmoded and moot. Should we produce bloatware? No. Should we produce software jam packed with easy to use features to make our experience more enjoyable? Absolutely. The ever increasing capabilities of the PC will enable this in the long-term. The constant push for faster PC's is a requirement that one must maintain is essential for distant success. While my ideas aren't always agreed with, I thought I'd share some thoughts on my lunch break. :) A late one at that... Andy |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 6:48:33 PM |
| I would say you could look at it another way--hardware is substantially fast enough in terms of processors and external interconnects, but what is lacking is the fast, fast internal buses (I know they're coming but the fact that FireWire blows them all away is sad) and internet infrastructure is way behind... MS keeps acting like it's everyone else's problem or that they will provide all the innovation necessary--meanwhile the OEMs have no room for any R&D or innovation because they have been completely commoditized to sh!t. Other developers and sources of innovation cannot push their technology without MS deciding they are on the bandwagon, and it's approved for Windows. So we are left funneling innovation through MS--but they haven't explained why I should buy a $500 video/remote control (Mira) or a $1000 tablet (when I can type faster than I write) or provided the compelling reasons for broadband, etc... The reason why there is less innovation now is that its a homogenized environment; if it was a bit more diverse, there'd be more room to innovate outside of what MS's envisions as a way to extend their revenue growth. |
| #5 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/16/2002 6:50:11 PM |
|
#6 This person fully agrees with your ideas. Add to them human-like AI (kinda inferred though).
Although that may end like all the sci-fi movies where the computer tries to kill the humans. :-) #7 The $1000 Tablet is also a fully functional laptop w/ keyboard. www.microsoft.com/tabletpc As for Mira, a lot of Apple people speculated that Jobs would announce that instead of the flat panel iMac. This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 18:56. |
| #6 By 1868 (141.133.144.204) at 4/16/2002 7:22:21 PM |
|
aamendala,
While, I agree with most of your post, I think we're missing a key point. Sure we want killer applications that drive innovation. I think Gates, Grove, and company would absolutely love to have applications such as voice recognition, speech dictation, and face recognition. But I think that all of them have come to realize the central flaw in their plans. Its not the language that you code in, its not the hardware that you run on, instead it is the human factor that is plaguing the industry. It takes human innovation, and more importantly human ingenuity to come up with these killer apps. So far, (I am not saying that it won't happen) humans have always come up with ingenious ways to tame and control the latest and greatest hardware so that we all saw a tremendous increase with each upgrade cycle. However, with technology grim ripper of "OBSOLESCENCE" close behind, many of the companies that have invested large amounts of money into killer apps such as voice recognition, speech dictation, and face recognition have come(or have been forced to come) to the conclusion that the people they employ just can't keep up with the technology advancements, or that humanly they haven't found bright enough people to come up with the necessary breakthroughs they so desperately need in order to come up with these killer apps. The time necessary to develop these breakthroughs is not realistic when considering the hardware advancements, because they just take to long to develop. This same dilemma is being played out with sony PS2 and the Xbox because even the most technically advanced games can’t fully tap the potential of the systems for the sole reason that the developers can’t keep up with the technology and the time to create such games and apps isn’t feasible and doesn’t make good financial sense when the hardware goes out of date so fast. Microsoft and IBM have been working on speech recognition for well over 5 years, and still they haven’t been able to build a system the works beyond 90% accuracy. If MS, IBM or for that matter any computer, could find the “bright” and “innovative” people to make these desired programs they would, but they haven’t been able to(doesn’t mean they won’t, but so far).It simple can said that I believe that the human technological boundary is being erected where computer potential is just too far out of the reach of the human developer. I hope I’m wrong, and I know Bill hopes so too, because then we’ll all see such desired apps and continue to upgrade because of their innovations. Just my 2 cents |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 7:23:10 PM |
|
So, in which case, if I use it as a laptop instead of as a tablet it's not innovative. This was also promised to be just around the corner even before .Net was announced... I'm still waiting.
So what about what Apple is or isn't working on--they aren't trying to blame the industry for not innovating, or trying to bring pressure to bear what they are envisioning as innovation. They are just plodding along in their own right, working with their partners. And also, they are outside of the sucking vacuum of the Wintel world where they would have to wait for MS or Intel or Nvidia--they just do it on their own. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/16/2002 7:28:46 PM |
|
sodajerk - " but what is lacking is the fast, fast internal buses (I know they're coming but the fact that FireWire blows them all away is sad)"
Huh? http://www.hawaii.edu/infotech/speeds.html Firewire doesn't come close to even saturating a PCI bus, much less is it comparable to Ultra3 SCSI, or AGP. Are you sure you didn't mean external bus? "reason why there is less innovation now is that its a homogenized environment" I've seen more innovation in the past 6 years than the 15 years prior to that. Maybe you're not seeing it because of your obsession with Apple and Firewire? |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/16/2002 7:46:00 PM |
|
No, I was mostly referring to memory and subcontroller interconnects--333 Mhz DDR would deliver about 540 Mb/s which beats FireWire. Your link didn't work by the way. I 've seen PCI constrained at 100 Mb/s and know it goes higher but not much, but maybe I'm wrong--I'm pretty certain that it hasn't reached 400. I don't know what you mean by "FireWire doesn't come close to even saturating a PCI bus." How could an interconnect run over and saturate another bus? I guess you are talking about data transfer over FireWire which is connected via a PCI card? Well, I guess that's an argument for having a FW controller built right on the motherboard, but that doesn't diminish the actual transfer capacity of FW.
I'm mostly referring to the last couple of years where MS is caught scrambling to find new markets and new products to tout as the next big thing, this time period where they keep claiming to have the next big innovation, but which they haven't been able to deliver a real innovation yet. I'm not even close to obsessed with Apple or FireWire--I guess you're just annoyed that you couldn't explain a good reason for getting a usb hard drive over a FW one. I mentioned those internals specifically to suggest that IBM (RapidIO), AMD (Hypertransport), and Intel (what's their deally again... to replace PCI?) are continuing innovation. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 20:03. |
| #10 By 2960 (24.168.201.39) at 4/16/2002 8:06:21 PM |
|
JaggedFlame,
Bystander? I've been working in this industry for over 20 years. I am a Microsoft MCP. I am A+ Certified. I am certified in everything Apple ever certified. My entire professional life revolves around Microsoft and Novell technologies, as a Senior Systems Engineer. At home, I have two Windows 2000 Servers, an Athlon 1800+ system loaded for bear, several older Mac's, and a new LCD iMac. I am not a 'bystander'. I know precisely what XP does and does not offer. I was using it 6 months before the public ever saw it. With that said, I do not believe in false loyalties. I call it like I see it, whether it's Microsoft, Novell, Apple, or whoever. XP is an excellent UPDATE to Windows 2000 technology. On the other hand, it's no one's saviour. It has it's own unique problems, just as Windows 2000 and MacOS X have their own unique problems. TL |
| #11 By 2960 (24.168.201.39) at 4/16/2002 10:28:10 PM |
|
#16,
I agree. Gaming has been the driving force behind the impressive updates we've seen in PC hardware over the last several years, and I'm sure happy for it :) I'm an absolute hardware nut. I'm the kind of person that builds a new PC every 6 months because I can't stand to be behind :) My thing is racing simulators. Many are into first-person and third-person shooters. Both are stressful on hardware, and drive the never-ending improvement of hardware. I'm really astonished at what AMD/Intel/Microsoft have been able to do with technology that really hasn't change drastically for some 20 years. It's amazing! TL |
| #12 By 2960 (24.168.201.39) at 4/16/2002 10:35:26 PM |
|
#14,
The first comment I'll let go because 1) That sort of thing doesn't really bother me and 2) I think you were being humorous anyway :) As far as XP goes, I pretty much agree. I like XP and the improvements, mainly in compatibility over Windows 2000, that it brings. I have to be honest and say that I could have done without a lot of what Microsoft built into it, though. Call me Old School, but I believe an Operating System should be an _operating system_. It should provide the basis for application developers to base their wares on. IMHO, it should not come bundled to the gills with Applications that are of dubious useability to begin with. Windows Media Player I can live with. It's not that bad. However, the CD Burning software, Movie Software, etc... is really quite lame and should have been left as an optional install. Does this mean I don't think Microsoft should not be allowed to include it? Of course not. They can do what they want, just like any other developer. However, I personally think they should be optional installs, and not buried in so deep that you can't get rid of them. And don't even get me started on Windows Messenger :) I honestly believe we would be better off, have a much more stable, higher performing Operating System if Microsoft would stick to keeping it just that. If they want to stick an extra CD in the box with 'extra's, cool. I'm sure someone, somewhere could make use of it. TL |
| #13 By 1658 (128.255.174.11) at 4/16/2002 11:27:53 PM |
|
I've created a monster! My 2 cents turned into quite a discussion... A good one though, they are rare these days. ;-) This post was edited by aamendala on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 23:28. |
| #14 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/17/2002 2:13:21 AM |
|
Sodajerk: "So, in which case, if I use it as a laptop instead of as a tablet it's not innovative. "
It's still innovative in that you would have a pressure sensitive display for which you could draw diagrams, etc. on, and have them work seamlessly with your apps because the ink is a data type. It would also be great for people using things like Photoshop or CAD/CAM on the go. |
| #15 By 3339 (64.175.41.87) at 4/17/2002 4:20:27 AM |
| We've been using a tablet at my office for six months, trying to test it out. It sucks. It's unreliable. The batteries can hardly last what you'd call two hours--even swapping two, that's not very good for in the field CAD work. |
| #16 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 4/17/2002 1:33:43 PM |
| It wasn't a TabletPC, though, was it? The OS isn't even complete, and the only devices produced are prototypes. The TabletPC's battery life mirrors that of a normal notebook computer (It is a superset of today's notebooks). There are currently tablet devices available (some running Windows), but none running Windows TabletPC Edition. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 151 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:29:59 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
