How did microsoft get so big anyway ? 2

[Chance1234]

How did microsoft get so big ?

It doesnt add up , a company like GE i can understand but Microsoft nope,

here is my start of evidence against, please feel free to add or minus.

1. Bill gates not exactly the persona of Richard branson or donald Trump

2. Microsoft make things which never work properly littered with bugs

3. Sercurity has never been there strong point

4. Where is the inovation ? surely the inovators were apple and IBM

5. Ok kind of in relation to 4, so he wrote the first operating system but then what ? everything else has been second rate compared to other options.

6. Microsoft doesnt exactly have a track record in customer satisfaciton.

7. The brand doesnt exactly have a public image such as the coca-cola franchise

8. Support ?? ho ho ho !

9. They come up with all unworkable and time consuming licencing this that and the other, which is not ideal for business ,but still will follow the lemming that is microsoft,

10. If microsoft was a person and they came into my office with their CV and track record looking for a job, i would send them to mcdonalds.


Chance,

Filmmaker, gentlemen and proffesional drinker

http://public.fotki.com/chance1234/

 

[JimHorton]

Very simple:

Right Place, Right Time.

MS took advantage of a very unique situation that may never occur again. The PC was beginning to boom and it was very obvious that a standard was needed. You just couldn't have Office suite developers porting their code to dozens of OS's. MS was bundled with the most popular PC (IBM coined that term) and the one that made cloning viable.

You could talk on and on about marketing--and maybe they're good at that--but the simple fact is that they were the defacto standard and that is very difficult to change once the installed base gets into the millions. The fact that they *did* cheat by publishing crippled Public API's for the developers and having MS's apps use the efficient private api's is a whole 'nother issue--but that is why MS's apps generally beat out the competition--not innovation.

I've said in other threads that MS Windows is like a public utility--the logistics of having so many OS's are similar to the logistics of having 5 different sets of water pipes underground, or 5 different highways going to the same place--and letting them compete for users--it's simply not feasible. How can you cut up so much land and build 5 roads that do essentially the same thing? Same thing with OS's--why develop 5 different versions of software and deal with 5 different sets of bugs, 5 differnt marketing plans, etc., etc. It just doesn't make economic sense for a software developer--and that's what it's all about--No on buys a PC and sits there and looks at the desktop--they run applications--and that's what drives the market.
--jsetph

 

[unixtechie]

And until or if the BSDs or Linux variations make installations as simple as Windblows, for example, when I added xcdroast, an X11 front-end to burn cd's on my BSD machine I had to add a line to the kernel and compile. John & Jane Q. Public are not going to do that, so until simplicity is implemented Windblows will dominate the desktop. In its defectiveness and all.

But MS is costing money of businesses with their defective software and manufacturers would have been facing lawsuits long before now if faced with issues that plague MS.

 

[JimHorton]

Yes, it would be nice if, say, Redhat could find some happy medium of stability and user-friendlyness.

I installed RH 6.0, then later 7.3 on one of my machines, went through all the samba stuff and got it networked with my other boxes, got mySql up, the whole bit. But it was a royal pain. For business and professionals, I believe it's worth it because I believe it's more stable, though me personally, I don't do any 'real world' stuff on that box yet, just tinkering for now. But for the average Joe & Judy Check-my-email-and-browse-the-web types, it's not worth it.

Also, I think some of the instability of windows comes from all the add-on 'user-friendly' stuff. For instance, all that second-guessing-meddling that Mr. Paperclip Guy does when you're trying to work, etc.--that kind of stuff has to add a layer of complexity and points of failure to the system, not to mention the obvious bloat. And the colossal mess that is The Registry--there's a few million points of failure in one shot. But I digress...
--Jim

 

[jrbarnett]

My experience with Linux is very varied.
I had a P166 system with oodles of RAM, disk space etc, and it ran Red Hat 4, which meant I was able to use it for Uni Unix assignments in the 2nd year and it gave me a real benefit. It was triple boot NT4 and Win3.1 as well. After the 2nd year however it stayed unused, as the 4th year unix assignments required multiple machines which I didn't have.

On upgrading my PC, I tried out Linux again - Mandrake 8, about 2 years ago.
It didn't work with my Conexant software modem, so there was no way of me getting an internet connection (I am still on dial up), so it stayed on my hard drive, unused for absolutely ages until I wiped it - and 98 - earlier this year and replaced the lot with 2000. I could have spent time on getting it to work, or tried a later distribution, but I had better things to do with my time than figure out how to get a modem working on Linux - that already worked fine on Windows. I'm sure someone like unixtechie will know how to do this, but I am not au fait with the internals of Linux/Unix type systems - I have installed it and fiddled, but certain things were and still are beyond my area of knowledge.

My opinion is that it is down to support. For software driven hardware devices (such as modern modems) where it is imperative, surely it is in the manufacturs interests to ensure it is usable by the widest possible base, and that means drivers and support for operating systems other than Windows.

John

 

[jwenting]

1. Bill gates not exactly the persona of Richard branson or donald Trump
But he does have charisma and vision... Plus he usually knows what he's talking about (and when not he has a team of people that do and he's smart enough to rely on them).

2. Microsoft make things which never work properly littered with bugs
No better or worse than the competition and they ARE better than the competition at fixing them.

3. Sercurity has never been there strong point
Can't help if people use their products in areas they were never intended for.
Windows up to Windows NT4 and Windows 2000 were never intended for multi-user environments in a non-friendly network (just like Unix OSs which are also shot full of holes).

4. Where is the inovation ? surely the inovators were apple and IBM
All companies innovate or they don't survive.
Microsoft spends billions a year on research into new technologies most of which you never see because they don't translate into a nice shiny frontend...

5. Ok kind of in relation to 4, so he wrote the first operating system but then what ? everything else has been second rate compared to other options.
What other options?
Microsoft products are in general no worse and often better than competing products.

6. Microsoft doesnt exactly have a track record in customer satisfaciton.
Most people who claim to "hate" Microsoft products don't, they're just jealous of the success of the company (just like you are).
There's a lot of excellent products in the Microsoft line. Office is a magnificent piece of work, so are most Windows versions (they're not perfect, but easy to use and powerful).
About the only bad things I see are Visual BASIC and MFC, both of which most people never experience.

7. The brand doesnt exactly have a public image such as the coca-cola franchise
Oh?
Everyone knows the name, most people and companies will buy their products on sight.


8. Support ?? ho ho ho !
Some of the best in the industry, if you'd ever had contact with them.
Apparently you haven't though and are just repeating lies and flames you picked up on slashdot from the slashbots.

9. They come up with all unworkable and time consuming licencing this that and the other, which is not ideal for business ,but still will follow the lemming that is microsoft,
Only way to protect themselves from pirates like you...

10. If microsoft was a person and they came into my office with their CV and track record looking for a job, i would send them to mcdonalds.
I'd give very serious thought to hiring them.
Not perfect but well versed in the industry, very experienced and having survived a lot of badmouthing based on things pulled way out of proportion and outright lies.

 

[JimHorton]

jwenting,
It's easy to say MS is no worse than the others when we can't really know what the others would have come up with, had they not been put out of business--many due to ms's illegal practices.

MS also has stymied true innovation, by buying very innovative technologies and keeping them on the shelf--much the same way as the auto companies and oil companies want to buy and shelf alternative fuel products--the Oil companies do this for obvious reasons. The Auto companies do this because of the massive retooling it would take to create a new car, and for a market that would be nonexistent--due to Oil comanies resistance to alternative fuels--until we run dry of oil altogether.

You don't hear of these companies and products that MS buys and shelves, of course, but Open source initiatives, OpenGl, and Java are good examples of how MS has purposefully muddied the waters or torpedoed innovation that would have ultimately helped the public, but of course hurt MS's dominance. Yes I can understand why they do this, and maybe it's not even illegal to buy and shelve new innovations, but in human terms it's just plain wrong, sneaky, and selfish.

And yes, these things help their bottom line which is fine for the investors and it is in keeping with the profit motive, in which I believe. But when you say "Office is a magnificent piece of work", that may be true from a relative standpoint, but I believe that other, better solutions could have and would have come to market had they not been squashed by the other, illegal practices that MS has engaged in. But we may never know for sure.
--Jim

 

[Chance1234]

jwenting, you seem to be taking this a bit personal,
I will give you Bill gates has vision, though what that vision is i cant help thinking of Dante's inferno,
I am curious to know what areas i should use my computer so it will be sercure, is there such as place ?
and truely i do hate Microsoft, after 15 odd years of using their products I can quite safely say that i do, and I can go one
better than dealing with mircosoft support is i know quite a few people who used to do it, and whilst there great guys to go
down the pub with, i wouldnt let any of them near my computer. I have also had dealing;s with microsoft at a more i gues syou say exectutive level, and that was the only time i have ever left a meeting feeling very afraid. Oh and i can assure you Im not jealous of their success, i run a quite succesful business myself in a totally differnt field. Out of the office range of products the only two i reguarly use are Access 97, and Excel XP. There are better word processors out there, there are better presentation packages out there, better web software, better e-mail programs, i could go on. I tell you one company i find a pleasure dealing with and use many of their products is Adobe,

oh and also how did you know i wore a eye patch and had a parrot on my shoulder ?


Filmmaker, gentlemen and proffesional drinker

http://public.fotki.com/chance1234/

 

[JimHorton]

The scary thing, being discussed in aother thread here titled "Hi, I have with iterest been" is the Palladium or "Trusted Computing" issue. Here is a case where I see WAY too much power in the hands of a few. The few being Microsoft and Intel, and a few others.

The bottom line as our thread here goes, as I see it, is that there is a good reason for antitrust laws, even though they may seem anti-capitalist. A law is a law, and if you take laisse-faire capitalism to it's extreme, it's concievable that the 'anything for a profit' concept could include repealing/rewriting other laws, for example, murder.

If you could make more profit by physically shooting your competition, then why wouldn't a morally corrupt company lobby to have the current law changed or simply break it? It's happened before--people have literally murdered competitors. It sounds preposterous, sure. And laws are not natural--they are man made--even those against murder. So we make laws, like anti trust laws and homicide laws, and we must follow them, whether it hurts the profit motive or not.

MS chose to not break the murder law, but they did (there is no argument here--it's been proven) break antitrust laws. You can call Ms bashers jealous if you like, but you'd be wrong in most cases. I'm not jealous of the guy who murders bank employees and steals a few hundred thousand$$, I'm angered that he hurt good people and enriched himself doing so. And that robber's accomplices, while they didn't pull the trigger, share in the dirty deed. I have the same feelings for Bill Gates and his accomplices (MS top management, Steve Ballmer most notabley) for the exact same reasons.
--Jim

 

[MDXer]

JimHorton,

I am sure you have taken the high road and do absolutely no business with Microsft at all. The company or clients you work for are 100% Non Microsft Shops. Because if you have such strong ethical opinions about Microsoft it would be against everything you believe to actually use their products.

"Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!"
- Daffy Duck

 

[JimHorton]

MDXer,
Your foot is in your mouth, and you haven't read my posts--here or elswhere. I've *always* said here and in other posts without shame, that I do use MS products, quite a bit. That doesn't bar me from having opinions against them. And just so were clear, I'll continue to use MS products, and even if I take a job with MS I can still have my opinions of them. That doesn't make me or anyone else who shares my opinions and uses MS produts a hypocrite, and I shouldn't have to explain that simple concept.

--Jim

 

[GwydionM]

I began using mainframe operating systems at work, another system again for a Mini where we kept our documentation, Mac for my desktop home computer and a Psion portable. Remembering all these operating systems was quite possible, but a needless strain when there were better things to be thinking about.

At work, they standardised on Windows and Microsoft office software, which is heavily orientated towards the needs of managers, the people with the purchasing power. When I came to replace my machines, I found it easier to get something that I was already familiar with--and not confused by the subtle mix of differences and similarities with Windows and Mac OS, not to mention Psion. You can get a Psion talking to a Mac or Windows PC, and no doubt I could do wonderful stuff with Linux if I was willing to invest a few dozen hours learning it thoroughly. But it was simpler to go with the flow.

Microsoft has prospered by being lucky and clever within the normal practices of US business. Cleaner than some: compair them to Ford, ITT, Standard Oil, not to mention Enron.

It's not sensible to complain about Microsoft unless you criticise the system as a whole. (Which I would, see my threads I've staarted if you want to know more.)

 

[JimHorton]

I for, one, do criticize the system as a whole. In several threads, as well as this one, I've stated that MS should be under some sort of regulation, as public utilities are. No, I'm not for big government, but as I've explained, the logistics are such that it makes sense.

For someone like mdxer to attempt to brand someone a hypocrite for actually speaking ones opinion yet still using said product--is much like calling someone a hypocrite for complaining about the electric bill but still using electricity.

The meek sit quiet and accept mediocrity and worse without speaking up. And just as one person can't send the Electric Utility out of business by moving to a cave, one person can't change MS by not using ms products.
--Jim

 

[CajunCenturion]

That's a good point JimHorton, and to add to that, most us, at least in our professional settings, do not have a choice as to what systems we work with. We can certainly recommend, and sometimes we do get what we want, but for the most part, the choice has already been made.

I would not like to MS under the kind of governmental legislation that utility and other natural monopolies are under, because I do not want the government, or anyone else, to either condone or accept that MS, or in more generic terms, a technology company falls into that category, like a utility company, where a monopolistic provider actually makes sense. I would much rather see MS held accountable by the Justice Department for it's illegal trade practices and anti-trust violations. But it's hard to convinct of MS of anti-trust violations when Apple keeps it's market share. The fact that Apple is still where it is because of Microsoft infusing capital into Apply by buying Apple stock to keep the anti-trust actions at bay is another example of MS shrewed business. There is nothing wrong here, but not all of MS's business practices are quite so above board.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[sleipnir214]

CajunCenturion:
Your comment about a lot of us not having a choice about the systems we work with has brought a deliciously paranoid thought to mind...


All:
CajunCenturion and I once worked for the same company, and our direct manager went to a sales seminar on how to sell SAP. The attendees were directly and explicitly told to not talk to the CIO of a company, but rather to the CFO. They were to spin a dream of how much money SAP could save the company, which would get the whole process running before any IT folk could squawk about the technical requirements to make SAP work. By the time practicality had raised its ugly head, the company had already signed a contract.



Is it possible that Mi¢ro$oft's high software prices responsible in part for their success?

Think about it. To do a large Mi¢ro$oft rollout will involve so much money that it's going to be a capital expense. Which means managers very high on the totem pole must get involved in the decision. Which increases the chances that people with limited technical backgrounds will be involved in the software choosing process. Which increases the chances that the decision will be made based on factors other than reliability and security.


And how many times have you heard an intelligent but ignorant manager say something like, "Well, we're going with the Mi¢ro$oft product because it has the new tint control feature"?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[unixtechie]

Speaking of money being wasted - I work for a fed gov't contractor which uses an RS/6000 SP system, however, because some homegrown apps don't work, they attribute this to AIX. Their solution is to go with Sun.

Also, the Sr. Engineer in charge of all this, and the one who made the decision to leave AIX, has no experience on an SP and states he doesn't like AIX but he likes Solaris.

I am the only one there who has SP experience (4 yrs SP alone) and it is a battle because everyone without experience with it complains and say "I hate the SP."

So instead of training and learning, they are just going to implement new hardware and software for their solution.

Don't even get me started on their methods for benchmark testing - which they are required to do - because they already know what they want. One example, in a meeting about Oracle, a statement was made, "AIX fails Oracle installs." Flat-out, no basis, nothing to baseline this against and when brought up, it was said, "AIX fails, nothing more to say." So the outcome is already decided. Also, since there are more processors in the AIX nodes and the Sun nodes are only going to have 2, they have already said that they will just do an across the board 50% to account for the fewer CPUs. No real comparison on speed architecture, etc., though it was brought up and dismissed.

 

[rosieb]

sleipnir214

So, IT knows best. They fully understand the business requirements, understand the needs of the users, and are totally up-to-date on all reliability and security issues. (That’s what I tell my users – some of them even believe me.)

 

[sleipnir214]

Of course, IT knows best. Did you ever doubt it?

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[sleipnir214]

Here's another contributing factor for Mi¢ro$oft's size: U.S. government intervention.

Had the U.S. government not intervened in 1989, the top desktop OS in the world might have been a Japanese-developed OS called BTRON:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31855.html

As it is, another variant of BTRON, ITRON, is actually the most-installed computer OS in the world. If you ignore computer categories, of course.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!