5 ms·

This doesn't mention the elephant in the room - open source. 2000-2009 saw open source software become completely mainstream, probably best illustrated by the

by motters 17y ago

This doesn't mention the elephant in the room - open source. 2000-2009 saw open source software become completely mainstream, probably best illustrated by the Firefox browser. Microsoft really failed to adapt to the rise of open source and the increasing developer mindshare which it commanded. Instead of trying to harness its potential and ride the wave their strategy was mostly one of antagonism and FUD.

rbanffy 17y ago
Microsoft's business model (as with any proprietary software company) is to keep the user dependent on them. Since they exist since before FLOSS became mainstream, they do it by providing an adequate technology for a reasonable cost with incremental upgrades to existing technology, effectively preventing many legacy owners to migrate to greener pastures, and by providing excuses for the executives to use when a legacy-disrupting migration to FLOSS could be the best option. It's been rather effective.
- motters 17y ago
  It hasn't been all that effective so far. Microsoft has lost significant market share in browsers to FLOSS, and it looks like something similar is happening with its office productivity software too.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Windows is still pretty much installed on every x86 computer sold and Office is the de-facto standard for business documents. Just about every company has an Exchange server (I am sad for them) and just about every server sold has an x86 processor because nothing else runs Windows. This last part is what hurts me more: we can't really innovate in hardware because there is an economic imperative to be able to run Windows... Microsoft is dragging us down.
    - Tamerlin 17y ago
      Actually, Windows is NOT the reason that most servers have x86 processors in them... that's due to a different legacy -- namely, x86. The catch there is that Intel and AMD have accomplished such huge economies of scale combined with such advanced manufacturing technologies that no one else can match their cost to performance ratio. For markets where cost isn't as constrained, like the big financial systems, stock exchanges, vehicle crash simulations, environmental modeling (like the Earth simulator and the NCAR weather models) you'll see quite a variety of non-x86 processors, including very application-specific PowerPC variants like the one in BlueGene. In markets where performance is far from the primary criterion like in smart phones, ARM dominates. That said, Windows does have an adverse affect on innovation in other ways -- for example, to function in a corporate environment, it's nearly mandatory to interoperate with Exchange and Office.
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        "no one else can match their cost to performance ratio" This is untrue. No processor can run as many threads per socket as an UltraSPARC T2. No general-purpose CPU can match the Cell at floating-point performance (the Cell BE in the PS3 can do single-precision FP, but IBM has other models that handle double-precision). No processor can match ARM in performance per watt. The sad truth is those processors are pretty much niche in that they cater to people who don't need Windows. Once you make a server Windows-compatible, you can sell it to a much bigger public, just because it runs Windows and it runs Unix, if not at the most performance per dollar over a 5 year period, they run it well enough.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        He did mention cost. You can't get a comparably performing system for the same amount of $ on a different platform. That's a simple fact. It's nothing to do with niches, every niche except for the smallest machines (and that's where ARM really shines) has an intel chip or a compatible just about tailor made for that niche, at a very competitive pricepoint.
        Tamerlin 17y ago
jacquesm 17y ago
IE vs Firefox is Microsoft vs Open source in a nutshell. If not for Office they'd be a lot hotter water right now. Lock in is really nice when you've got it, even if your customers hate it. Open Office still has a lot of rough edges, even after all those years, it's one of the few things that buys microsoft more time. If open office were to be ported to C, trimmed of it's bloat and made more compatible (ok, that would add some bloat back in) Ballmer would sleep a lot less good.
- artagnon 17y ago
  Office/ Groupware (Microsoft Exchange, Outlook) AND their development tool chain. Visual Studio with its fantastic compiler and debugger kicks GCC + GDB in the arse.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    That may be but they don't support my platform of choice so I can't use them.

by motters 17y ago

rbanffy 17y ago

Microsoft's business model (as with any proprietary software company) is to keep the user dependent on them. Since they exist since before FLOSS became mainstream, they do it by providing an adequate technology for a reasonable cost with incremental upgrades to existing technology, effectively preventing many legacy owners to migrate to greener pastures, and by providing excuses for the executives to use when a legacy-disrupting migration to FLOSS could be the best option. It's been rather effective.

motters 17y ago
It hasn't been all that effective so far. Microsoft has lost significant market share in browsers to FLOSS, and it looks like something similar is happening with its office productivity software too.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Windows is still pretty much installed on every x86 computer sold and Office is the de-facto standard for business documents. Just about every company has an Exchange server (I am sad for them) and just about every server sold has an x86 processor because nothing else runs Windows. This last part is what hurts me more: we can't really innovate in hardware because there is an economic imperative to be able to run Windows... Microsoft is dragging us down.
  - Tamerlin 17y ago
    Actually, Windows is NOT the reason that most servers have x86 processors in them... that's due to a different legacy -- namely, x86. The catch there is that Intel and AMD have accomplished such huge economies of scale combined with such advanced manufacturing technologies that no one else can match their cost to performance ratio. For markets where cost isn't as constrained, like the big financial systems, stock exchanges, vehicle crash simulations, environmental modeling (like the Earth simulator and the NCAR weather models) you'll see quite a variety of non-x86 processors, including very application-specific PowerPC variants like the one in BlueGene. In markets where performance is far from the primary criterion like in smart phones, ARM dominates. That said, Windows does have an adverse affect on innovation in other ways -- for example, to function in a corporate environment, it's nearly mandatory to interoperate with Exchange and Office.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      "no one else can match their cost to performance ratio" This is untrue. No processor can run as many threads per socket as an UltraSPARC T2. No general-purpose CPU can match the Cell at floating-point performance (the Cell BE in the PS3 can do single-precision FP, but IBM has other models that handle double-precision). No processor can match ARM in performance per watt. The sad truth is those processors are pretty much niche in that they cater to people who don't need Windows. Once you make a server Windows-compatible, you can sell it to a much bigger public, just because it runs Windows and it runs Unix, if not at the most performance per dollar over a 5 year period, they run it well enough.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        He did mention cost. You can't get a comparably performing system for the same amount of $ on a different platform. That's a simple fact. It's nothing to do with niches, every niche except for the smallest machines (and that's where ARM really shines) has an intel chip or a compatible just about tailor made for that niche, at a very competitive pricepoint.
      - Tamerlin 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

IE vs Firefox is Microsoft vs Open source in a nutshell. If not for Office they'd be a lot hotter water right now. Lock in is really nice when you've got it, even if your customers hate it. Open Office still has a lot of rough edges, even after all those years, it's one of the few things that buys microsoft more time. If open office were to be ported to C, trimmed of it's bloat and made more compatible (ok, that would add some bloat back in) Ballmer would sleep a lot less good.

artagnon 17y ago
Office/ Groupware (Microsoft Exchange, Outlook) AND their development tool chain. Visual Studio with its fantastic compiler and debugger kicks GCC + GDB in the arse.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That may be but they don't support my platform of choice so I can't use them.