Microsoft is objectively a pretty terrible software company

[IndyColtsFan]

With the exception of SQL Server, Exchange, and a few games, what other programs other than Windows and Office are wildly popular? IIS, Hyper V, and Active Directory do not count, since they are bundled in Windows server.

I know that they have some CRM stuff, but they have a lot of competition in that space.

SharePoint

 

[88keys]

hah! We're just trying to keep up with your goalposts there, chief.

Yes or No: the iPad is a resounding success because people use it for productivity.

simple statement, simple answer.

IIRC, Apple considers themselves to be a hardware company, NOT a software company.

 

[rudeguy]

SharePoint

yea but no one actually uses let alone works on SharePoint. Its one of those things that some poor slob in Montana is the only one left in the world still using it.








😛

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Even Windows hasn't done anything that Mac OS didn't do sooner. If it weren't for them, another OS would have taken their place. Windows wasn't the result of a talented team of developers or exquisite customer satisfaction.

And Mac OS was? LOL

 

[rudeguy]

IIRC, Apple considers themselves to be a hardware company, NOT a software company.

"Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced iPad 2 which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices."

Apple ends its press releases with a statement that resembles what a traditional mission statement is expected to be…

"Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings."

You don't RC

 

[zinfamous]

IIRC, Apple considers themselves to be a hardware company, NOT a software company.

why are you telling me this? OP is the one that brought Apple into this fight. We're just trying to play by his rules. Problem is they're harder to follow than Calvin Ball.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

OK...I'm done playing.


Your whole argument is that Microsoft "sucks" because of a couple of failures, correct? Or is it that Apple is better than Microsoft? Or is it that productivity software is hardware? Or is it that you have no idea what you are talking about and the world would be a better place if you were born without fingers?

Have you seen his other threads? They're all over the place and nothing but constant goalpost shifting, diversion, etc.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

yea but no one actually uses let alone works on SharePoint. Its one of those things that some poor slob in Montana is the only one left in the world still using it.


😛

My former CIO told me "all CIOs hate SharePoint." That was 2 weeks before I got a 70% raise jumping over to SharePoint consulting full time. 🙂

 

[rudeguy]

My former CIO told me "all CIOs hate SharePoint." That was 2 weeks before I got a 70% raise jumping over to SharePoint consulting full time. 🙂

you working on your own now?

Last I knew you were still a corporate slave.

 

[ultimatebob]

SharePoint

I already conceded on SharePoint! I might hate it, but it is popular.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

you working on your own now?

Last I knew you were still a corporate slave.

No, I work for a consulting organization now. I was in a rut and needed to try something new, and my old idiot CIO and his management team pissed me off one too many times. 😀

 

[rudeguy]

No, I work for a consulting organization now. I was in a rut and needed to try something new, and my old idiot CIO and his management team pissed me off one too many times. 😀

Oh I hear you! I'm glad things are going well.

I was in a huge rut at the cable company and needed to either quit or explode. Now I'm working for a small company doing techy shit and love it. Apparently they like me too. They just ordered me a $5,000 scope to play with...even after I told them I wasn't sure how to use it. I like this place.

 

[Rakehellion]

Your whole argument is that Microsoft "sucks" because of a couple of failures, correct?

A couple? Most everything but Windows and products that require Windows to run has been a failure.

Or is it that Apple is better than Microsoft?

I think my take on that was closer to:

It's irrelevant what Apple did

Apple profits have nothing to do with this thread.

Yes, I ignored a fact about Apple in a thread about Microsoft. I also ignored Toyota and Lego because they're equally irrelevant.

I mention Apple only because they were directly related to early Windows development

But then we got to talking about iPods for some reason?

 

[dank69]

... require ...

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

But then we got to talking about iPods for some reason?

This is your OP:

90% of their fame is from their operating systems, but even that was just pure luck. DOS wasn't anything close to the best thing available at the time and Windows wouldn't have existed if it weren't for their connections with Apple.

Any questions.

 

[rudeguy]

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :hmm:

 

[mikeymikec]

Much like you can't buy Office without Windows.

You can buy and use MSO without ever owning a copy of Windows.

 

[Rakehellion]

This is your OP:

Explain to me how these two statements contradict one another:

Windows wouldn't have existed if it weren't for their connections with Apple.

I mention Apple only because they were directly related to early Windows development

Also, direct me to where I mentioned Apple aside from their hand in Windows development.

 

[sdifox]

 

[Rakehellion]

You can buy and use MSO without ever owning a copy of Windows.

Office would not be the #1 productivity suite if it did not run on Windows. Office's non-Windows versions are about as popular as Windows Phone and other flops.

 

[sdifox]

Office would not be the #1 productivity suite if it did not run on Windows. Office's non-Windows versions are about as popular as Windows Phone and other flops.

WordPerfect was pretty popular on Windows before MSO got better.

 

[Hugo Drax]

DOS was not even invented by Microsoft. They actually purchased QDOS from Seattle Computer Products and just renamed it to DOS and made some trivial changes.

Office is actually composed of products they purchased in the past.

 

[rudeguy]

Office would not be the #1 productivity suite if it did not run on Windows. Office's non-Windows versions are about as popular as Windows Phone and other flops.

No software would be #1 if it didn't run on Windows.

Your logic is.... well....

 

[Chapbass]

Office would not be the #1 productivity suite if it did not run on Windows. Office's non-Windows versions are about as popular as Windows Phone and other flops.

Rake, I've seen one issue with some of your arguments in these threads:

Up above, you mention it wouldn't be the #1 productivity suite if it didn't run on windows. Okay, fair enough. But you're assuming then that if Office had never been designed for windows, then the other versions of office wouldn't be getting any development time. What about the Windows office team that has been working on office for the past 20 years? Put them on the OSX or linux team, and who knows what that version of office would be. It might be better, it might be worse, but it certainly WOULDNT be exactly the same, so making a huge statement about what it would be if it didn't run on windows is pointless.

Also, if you're saying that Office wouldn't be a big product if Windows didn't exist in the first place, that is also a complete shot in the dark guess. The entire computing infrastructure of the world would be completely different if Windows didn't exist. SOMETHING would have to be on all these PCs sold in the world, and MS would be developing office for whatever that OS might be (and you can't just limit it to OSX and Linux in this case, because who knows what other OS devs might come about if MS didn't have 95%+ marketshare).

My point is, trying to separate two major products like that is difficult because if there was a major change to office (like either of the scenarios listed), then the overall climate of the business space would be so different (and over so long of a time) that its impossible to predict what would've happened. Especially on something that was done in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Crono]

Zune HD is the best mp3 player and software ever made to this day (iPod touch and iTunes still isn't as good), the Surface wasn't perfect but new hardware is coming out soon and will make the Surface 2 Pro the best tablet/ultrabook on the market, and Windows Mobile was good for its era. Everything people love about Android - custom ROMs and themes, the ability to run emulators, being able to overlock the CPU, etc - all existed on Windows Mobile first.

The real problem it had was Microsoft didn't refresh it with capacitive touch and an app store fast enough, almost everything else would have improved with better hardware had it been continued. Windows Phone is good, though, much cleaner and smoother, and with an interface that is easier to use than iOS 7, even though it's locked down like it and lost the customization options of WM.