Bill Gates Retires This Friday

Microsoft runs it's projects in surges apparently. The project which attracts and is awarded the most attention gets the better computer engineering. At least thats the explaination i derive from their track record & history. Look at Xbox for an example.

It can be argued there are various departments for each specilaized project but the fact still remains IMO that certain products receive more resources and research then others untill their satisfied with the returns from it's marketing figures.

Theres nothing wrong with healthy competition, but in IE they've waivered and danced around it rather then applying the proper resources & attention to make it better/safer.

Where they go from here with Balmer doesn't exactly encourage confidence though IMO and it's nothing personal, just listening to these various chiefs and following how and what they answer with in response tells me a lot about the future of an industry's roadmap for advancements.

 

Why should anybody care?

 

Good Point.

It's almost like announcing Bill Gates is decided to change his attire to only casual blue jeans and sneakers when speaking at appointments.

 

It is Interesting.
Whatever you think of MS, and there is no doubt there has been some -cough- eclectic approaches to development and competitors, it is the gorilla in the room for desktop computing: no one else even close.

In the space of a few decades Allen and Gates went from garage operators to world dominant behemoth on the back of the brilliant licensing deal: they stooped to conquer and left the competition in their wake.

It will be keenly observed as to whether MS can continue when the founders are gone. It's a moot point as to what level Gates has had influence in the last few years.

Vista will be a significant watershed imo, created a lot of negative publicity.
Turned some consumers away.
Where does MS go from here ??

CAn MS gain traction in the business world?
Will competitors see this as an opportunity?
Why do we need desktops that can power a space shuttle when eeePC types are more than enough for most.

Why is Ballmer staying?

Hhmm:
W&W
Continue to explore and support other options...

 

From what I recall, the idea behind the Windows Operating System, when it evolved from DOS, was taken from another software program (I can't recall the name just now). So I am sure another company would have developed the OS interface if MS had not done so.

 

That may or may not be true. Another company with a different managerial structure and style could have been the dominant OS system had IBM adopted it into their hardware back in the 1980's. The profits and development probably would have gone into a different direction. Having graduated from Computer Science in the early 1980's as the personal computer was just being introduced, I found nothing compelling with the IBM machine with DOS versus other competitors at that time. The MS monopoly probably channeled the software development in a more one directional and unified way, so there was no more of the "babel" that existed back from the early 1980's. That was probably its most important facet, IMHO. But things could also have come out different and much better too without MS.

 

I must be one lucky sitting duck. I still use old versions of IE on my PCs that use Windows 3.11 and Win98. Since IE 7 does not support my old machines, I have no choice.

 

@bigc

lol
?break any legs
?bomb competitors

 

Lol, perhaps that's because today's malware authors have long lost interest in even attempting to attack those Windows versions. I'm not even sure the heavy duty attacks would even work.

 

Only after threats on the family didnt work

I take your point. But I think the ecosystem of software on the software would have been vastly different. If this babel had continued, developers would have had a harder time developing for different platforms. However given MS's competitive strategy (or anti competitive), we had only 1 platform that most developers had to worry about.

Cheers
Jeremy

 

This goes back to the root of the matter that was a annoying picking point back then - compatibility. People did not want computers that could not read or accept data from another computer. Too many different hardware platforms and software to run on them. If it had continued, MS certainly would not have the position that it has today. Software development today would be more complex and more trying to be sure. But from a mainframe platform perspective, that is par for the course.