Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Neowin reviews Windows 8 - Leave your pre-conceived notions at the door
40hz:
Because to build your own software from the ground up for large tasks is beyond most individuals, would take a life time and cost a fortune.
-Carol Haynes (October 27, 2012, 03:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Or be something that captures the imagination of many. (Like GNU/Linux or Raspberry Pi)
I don't think anybody seriously disputes the need for compatibility or standards. What is up for debate is exactly who gets to set those standards. And when it comes to the desktop, right now there are two monopolistic companies that effectively and unilaterally decide what goes and what doesn't. Not a good situation for the customer to be in from either a financial or a technical standpoint.
8)
wraith808:
Considering that almost 20 years after 16 bit applications were phased out I can still run them on my PC (I have one from my first job), I don't think that backwards compatibility is going to be a problem with Windows as they know where their bread is buttered. I really think that this is a move towards a hybrid OS rather than a move to close the total OS, which from a marketing standpoint I think was a bad idea, as it was the inception for a lot of people placing intentions on the company that might just not be there.
40hz:
...this is a move towards a hybrid OS rather than a move to close the total OS... -wraith808 (October 27, 2012, 12:14 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes. A hybrid steppingstone on the way to becoming a totally closed ecosystem.
... it was the inception for a lot of people placing intentions on the company that might just not be there.
--- End quote ---
Um...I don't know how much direct experience dealing with Microsoft you've had. But from my direct experience with them, it's obvious that their intention is, and has always been, to see the total dominance of Windows, and to have it running on everything in the world that has a CPU in it.
There was a time back in the late 80s and early 90s when they word "monopoly" was freely bandied about in Microsoft. It wasn't until later that Bill & Co. learned that corporations should never say the "M-word." Even in private.
wraith808:
...this is a move towards a hybrid OS rather than a move to close the total OS... -wraith808 (October 27, 2012, 12:14 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes. A hybrid steppingstone on the way to becoming a totally closed ecosystem.
... it was the inception for a lot of people placing intentions on the company that might just not be there.
--- End quote ---
Um...I don't know how much direct experience dealing with Microsoft you've had. But from my direct experience with them, it's obvious that their intention is, and has always been, to see the total dominance of Windows, and to have it running on everything in the world that has a CPU in it.
There was a time back in the late 80s and early 90s when they word "monopoly" was freely bandied about in Microsoft. It wasn't until later that Bill & Co. learned that corporations should never say the "M-word." Even in private.
-40hz (October 27, 2012, 01:25 PM)
--- End quote ---
I've had a lot of direct experience in dealing with Microsoft, even to the point of being in partner projects with them to get C# and .NET in shops; my training came directly from them on that regard as redmond engineers were in the same consulting gig that I was on, and we were flown to Redmond for training at MS's expense.
I think that they are definitely ... aggressive, to put it lightly, especially in regards to increasing and holding on to the Windows market share. However, I think that this may be a different animal, especially in the implementation of it. But that's just my reading of the signs from my experience as from the developer end and how their treatment of developers has gone (and the fact that this would be a definite screwing of the developers at the most basic level), as yours are yours. Only time will tell, and I suppose that's my point- to place intentions based on signs are to place opinions as fact.
40hz:
^My experience was primarily in sitting in contract negotiations to secure one of the earliest examples of what would eventually become Microsoft's site licensing program.
I'd have to characterize their negotiating stance and overall attitude during that as well beyond anything to which the term 'aggressive' is normally applied.
They were easily the most belligerent and uncooperative, to say nothing of most evasive and mercurial negotiating "partner" I have ever seen. And I've been in on more contract negotiations and licensing deals than I'd care to remember.
I personally dislike Microsoft because I often detect a serious absence of candor in much of what they do and say. They are a fierce competitor - and equally dangerous to have as an ally if their agenda or priorities suddenly change. Because Microsoft has never been overly reluctant to kick anything (or anyone) to the curb if their own business interests were so much as inconvenienced by something they had previously agreed to.
At least that was my impression of them. And they've done nothing since that leads me to believe I've misjudged either them or their intentions.
:)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version