Re: Thoughts on Vista

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 06:03:41 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Charlie Wilkes writes:

Yeah, that's about what it is. My wet dream is to *** Jennifer Lopez
while Angelina Jolie licks my balls, and I think it has a better
chance of coming true.

I'm not so sure, although I'll agree that this revenue model would be
extremely difficult to force upon consumers. Businesses already use
this model for mainframe software and some other types of software,
and so they might accept it (indeed, they might prefer it for
accounting reasons).

Note also that Bill Gates has officially announced that he is stepping
down (just yesterday, in fact), and that this inevitably will start to
wind down Microsoft as well, no matter what anyone says, unless his
replacement is another Gates, which would be a wildly improbable
coincidence.

I don't think the VisiCalc guy is another Gates. He's probably better
than Ballmer though.

I see the news about Google spreadsheets and
wonder what these idiots are putting in their koolaid.

I'm perplexed by that as well. Google is more or less forced into
this because they have to expand in a way compatible with their core
competencies and their resources, but I think this sort of idea is a
solution looking for a problem.

I think sheer desperation is a big part of the problem. We've got all
this great technology, but companies find it hard to lock in a
recurring revenue stream.

Yes. But many companies have been spoiled by rapid growth, which they
are now struggling to maintain. They have to face the reality that
nobody grows by 30% a year for fifty years.

A dose of healthy skepticism would go a long way. If Ballmer said,
"let's hammer on XP, really beat out the bugs that have come up over
the past 5 years, edit out some of the crud, and sell it with a great
service package," MS would have a hot "new" product and much cheaper
development costs.

Yes, but I don't think that Microsoft can see that. The company is
very insightful in some domains, and very blind in others. Like so
many companies, it has become attached to a certain business model,
and it won't let go; all companies seem to evolve in this way.

But, I have sat around conference tables enough to know the power of
the grandiose idiot who promises the moon and shields himself by
accusing his critics of "negative thinking." I learned a long time
ago to keep my mouth shut, and so have the smart people at MS. They
are riding the train toward a brick wall, pretending not to see it
while they prepare themselves to jump at the right moment.

Yup ... on an individual basis it makes sense. After all,
corporations are not living things. The corporation may fail, but
that doesn't necessarily mean that any people have to go with it
(except the last investors).

I'm happy to say I posted that before I read about Gates' changing
role.

MS faces a secular threat in the form of Macs that run Windows.
Pretty soon Windows will be Window singlular, an application gateway
on the Mac desktop.

I _seriously_ doubt that. Mac is not a threat to Windows.

Indeed, Apple is managed much more poorly than Microsoft, and I don't
expect that to change.

A more likely scenario is that people will start to run Mac OS on
non-Apple hardware configurations. Apple says they won't allow this,
and I'm sure that legally they won't, but technically they can't stop
it.

I agree with your assessment, but I tend toward a different
conclusion. I suspect hardware diversity rather than legal obstacles
will stop OS/X from running on PCs. The reason people ooh and aah
about OS/X is because it's part of a hardware/software package.

These days bootcamp users apparently have to choose from a boot menu.
How long will it be before it is possible to boot Windows in a virtual
environment under OS/whatever? And, at that point, why wouldn't the
guy who wants the ultimate system buy a Mac and toggle back and forth?


Meanwhile, Linux is not going away, it's getting
better slowly but surely, and dot net (if I understand it correctly)
makes it easier for developers to hedge their bets by serving both
platforms.

Linux is a non-player right now, and unless things change drastically
in Linuxland, I don't expect that to change.

A Vista flop could give it some wind. Also, if a big player decided
to adopt it and get serious about bugs and hardware compatibility
issues, that could change the situation.

But I'm thinking in terms of 2010 and beyond.

Charlie

Buggy Vista is not the answer. MS is shooting itself in the head.

It's Microsoft's own short-sightedness that will do it. And it's
inevitable.

My only concern is for the future of the OS, which will probably still
be extremely important even after Microsoft is gone. The legacy
support that MS has provided up to now has prevented any problems, but
if Microsoft folds and the OS is sold, what might happen then?

I think you're right about Gates -- his instincts would take over and
he would avert disaster.

He is already pulling out, as of yesterday, but not because of any
disaster (I think he finally realizes that it's time to sit back and
spend the money, instead of blowing the rest of his life in an office
in Redmond).

But Ballmer is just another corporate
striver who got to the top by being a better inside player than the
rest. The board should fire him now. They will next year, I bet.

They need a replacement first. The Ballmers of the world are in
plentiful supply, but good CEOs are scarce.



.