14 ms·
I go so far as to say, starting a bit over two decades ago, that one of the "secrets" of Microsoft's success is their long term ability to write software that b
by hga 11y ago
I go so far as to say, starting a bit over two decades ago, that one of the "secrets" of Microsoft's success is their long term ability to write software that basically works. As I mention in another part of this subthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10352022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10352022), they beat their "Office" competitors in part by not losing that ability when all else but Borland did. (Borland didn't, but lost at higher levels of management, including buying one of those failed competitors.)
As far as I can tell, general management incompetence, including of course "political bullshit", is most responsible for their post-XP problems (along with becoming too toxic for healthy peer companies to want work with them, but I'm not sure that matters when enough of the people at the top are so bad).
Although ... what would you say was responsible for the failure of Longhorn? Wasn't that in part technical? Or did that derive from higher up?
- pmelendez 11y ago> what would you say was responsible for the failure of Longhorn? Wasn't that in part technical? Or did that derive from higher up? Bill Gates actually touched that topic in is Reddit AMA. If I remember correctly, the bar was set up too high (i.e relational file system) and within the constrains it was a big challenge and at some point they had to deliver.
- hga 11y agoI also remember that a lot of it was going to based on .NET, and it wasn't mature enough/they weren't able to get it mature enough. The whole process was also impacted by security issues reaching a crisis level. But #1 would seem to be more ambition than Microsoft could deliver at the time.