Microsoft's Big Advantage

[alexander]

use windows at work, use os x and linux at home and don't miss using windows at work at all... Use IE only for testing websites and skins i built for the company.

[IDMclean]

I did the challege, bought the tee shirt and still I am not going back to windows. Next I move onward to Mac. Currently I am running a debian distro of linux, Ubuntu Dapper to be exact. What I discovered about Linux is this. You need a computer science degree to operate the OS. No, offence to the nerds out there, but it is a system built by and for computer nerds.

 

I am a nerd, and I can only minimally use the dang OS. Not to mention it doesn't play my favorite games, and downloading/installing third-party (that is stuff that doesn't show up on my synaptic package manager) software for it is a pain in the a$$.

 

I attribute it to structural path dependency. Same goes for the evolution of Windows. It's structural path dependency. It's why that for somethings I advocate just starting over from scratch. People who use Windows are going to expect the upgrade to be functionally much like the version they are currently using.

 

Linux has a love of the command-line and I know why. It's because most of the people who actually program for linux grew up working on command-line and it's what they are comfortable with. So as linux gets built upon, it carries with it, inherently the advantages and disadvantages of it's previous generations.

 

This is why new comers in the world of change tend to outstrip all the established individuals, it's because they aren't as structurally path depended. They are free to develop a new path and discover new ways to do things.

 

Hence why I celebrate the Wii's success. It's an old giant (Nintendo) that obviously has not become to entrenched in how they've always done it to do something different.

 

I can't stand Windows. The reason I can't stand Windows is because it lacks focus and forethought. It has lacked focus and forethought since it was built. Boer is quite correct in his assertion that Windows is designed to be everything to everyone. General solution for specific problems. Muddled delivery, must result. That is there is no general solution that will beat specific solution that is matched to a specific problem.

 

I can't stand Linux. The reason I can't stand Linux is because it's far to focused, and lacks forethought. If I wanted to develop dry computer engineered applications it would be the perfect system for me, I think. It's a specific solution for specific problems. Which is good for the computer engineer, bad for the general user.

 

Next I want to try Mac. It was designed, build and tested for the general public and for general use. I particularly want to try it because of whom they mass tested the Macintosh system with. School kids K-12. General solution for general problems. They allow specific solutions to be added for specific problems by third party developers whom are more aware of the challenges inherent with the specific problem domain. Hence Mac's popularity with the graphic artists.

[Shyam Bharath]

Sure does. But it's closer to 11,000. I was shocked when I learned that. 4,500 engineers engineering...what? ;)

 

I Can't imagine what 11,000 geeks can do! Nanotechnology, robotics, Data compression... or maybe a new OS?

 

My lecturer said once "One person making software X will take 100 days. 100 people making software X will also take 100 days. Because team programming takes a lot of time. You need to understand the code your team member has written and make yours compatible with his code"

[ArrowHead83]

I have to disagree with Boer here. Microsoft does have serious issues when it comes to the quality of their software, and it's not because of the size of the company or their target market.

 

It's because their ethos has for too long been "How can I get/force/fool people to use my software" rather than "How can I get my software to do what it's supposed to".

 

They're trying to do the impossible: Bend the world to accomodate their crappy software, rather than writing software that works in the real world. To do so, year after year they have to concentrate more and more on expanding their scope, implementing their own standards, and getting people to use their standards rather than other popular or open ones. Instead of just writing good software to begin with.

[Tormod]

It's because their ethos has for too long been "How can I get/force/fool people to use my software" rather than "How can I get my software to do what it's supposed to".

 

I see statements like this all the time, but very little evidence to back it up. I work in a Mac environment and we all use Microsoft Office, simply because it's the best there is for the Mac and because (admittedly) everyone else uses it.

 

But is it *crappy*? No. Are they forcing us to use it? No.

 

I think it is quite arrogant (no offense intended) to state that a company has a bad work ethic without pointing to hard evidence. The people I know who work for Microsoft are stellar developers with excellent credentials - I doubt they would bother to work for a company with a crappy "ethos".

[Qfwfq]

The strategy of M$ is that of aiming to gain and maintain a monopoly or near monopoly, by exploiting compatibility issues. The fact that many people use office because everybody else does is a demonstration of this, most companies just can't afford to go against it.

 

Personally I can't stand using office, I only do when I have to. It has set bad example too, more and more other products think they know what I wan't to do. It's especially annoying when the presumtion is that I'm stupid and I'm trying to make a mistake. Free choice is a good thing.

[C1ay]

It's because their ethos has for too long been "How can I get/force/fool people to use my software" rather than "How can I get my software to do what it's supposed to".

 

I see it a little differently. IMO they have an ethics problem with their quality. They're always in a big hurry to get the next version out without adequately debugging it. They use their customers as their testers. Imagine if some automaker did that to determine what safety fixes needed to be made to their products. After a death or two they'd be in mighty hot water, M$ does the same thing with business. They release buggy code with vulnerabilities that are susequently subverted costing business millions of man hours collectively trying to reign in the security breaches and viruses. If any automotive manufacturer routinely delivered the product flaws that M$ does they'd be held accountable under the multitude of "lemon laws" that exist. I think it's time for some lemon laws that apply to products other than cars...

[Buffy]

Sometimes its fun to see Microsoft stick their foot in it....

 

Check out this link from this week's Robert X. Cringely column at Infoworld... Microsoft tried to get "free advice" on their silly (probably patented) "People-Ready" tag line and has caught the wrath of the IT blogosphere. The suggestions at the end of the column are priceless...

 

What free advice is worth,

Buffy