msft impede software innovation & intel impede hardware innovation?

[Scarpozzi]

That is an interesting viewpoint. I believe though that you could say that about any company/industry. It's just obvious that the software market has been flooded by Microsoft's products. It's good to be innovative, but it's also good to have a standard when you're providing solutions to an enterprise. I would assume that other software vendors are still being 'innovative', they're just hitting other target markets for private industry and government applications.

 

[NewSc2]

I use quick-launch for 90% of the programs I use. (in response to the complaint about the start button)

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: draggoon01
this article was mentioned in another thread. there was this one part that caught my attention:

Text

Bill is almost single-handedly responsible for destroying any real innovation in the software world, in a manner very similar to the way Intel destroyed any real innovation in computer architecture.

can someone explain what he's getting at/what he means?

as far as msft, i'm under the impression that them monopolizing with windows is in many ways a good thing because they've created a standard os to write programs for. and that this good mostly outweighs the bad they do (using their position to muscle out certain companies in their way).

as far as intel i don't know much of their history or tactics

Miscrosoft is easy. Until Windows 2000, none of the windows based OSes were OSes by the definition of what an OS is.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: DaZ
Actually.. I've never thought of it that way..

Imagine how much it would cost the average software developer if they had to customize their programs for 5-6 different operating systems.. Imagine having to choose an O/S simply on which software is available for that O/S... (ie say 3dsm5 was only on Windows)... Consider how much more significantly expensive software development would be. Hence why most software is only available on one platform or the other currently..

Say there is... 6 competing O/S's.. Not all companies will be able to support all those O/S's.. so imagine having your favorite game not being developed for 'your' O/S..

Of course, this is where Java could become god like. Im not very familiar with Java, but if someone actually tried, could you code a fully function 3D game like quake3 in java? is it that capable? or even an application like photoshop.. could it be done?

Or companies could develop their own VM, much like Carmack did with Quake3.. qvm!

As for Microsoft and Intel holding down innovation..

To answer your question, anything can be done in JAVA, it's just that it will run slower. A quake 3 clone would run VERY SLOWLY. You can code everything in JAVA though and mix in C++. This is possible. Never done it though. Doing so has one draw back though. It is now OS dependant. You could build wrappers for each OS thathte same JAVA code could use though, thus making portability "easier".

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: Electrode
Two points I want to make about Microsoft:

1. Windows is a piece of shit. Windows XP is an ugly collection of bloat and hacks hot glued to a core that hasn't changed much since 1994. Microsoft has no strong competition, so they have no motivation to improve their product. Other operating systems, like Linux and BSD, are changing all the time, not at the user interface level, but at the kernel level. That means REAL improvement thaat actually makes a difference. The only thing new versions of Windows add are more bloat and pretty pictures.

2. Since Microsoft has so much control over everything, they are free to do whatever they want to in order to squeeze more money out of those who made the mistake of using their products. Just look at the subscription-based licenses they're moving everyone over to. Now you no longer have the choice to stick with an older version of their software that works just fine, you will be forced to upgrade, since Microsoft will refuse to renew your subscription licences, or charge insane fees to do so. Since they have all this control, there's really not much anyone can do about it.


Two points I want to make about Intel, Microsoft, and innovation:

1. Remember what it was when Intel called all the shots, before AMD was the household name it is now? New CPUs were few and far between, and they would set you back upwards of $1000 a piece. Now we have new chips coming out every other month, and a top-of-the-line one costs somewhere around $250. Competition, not monopolization, causes innovation.

2. Microsoft does not 'innovate'. They buy 'innovative' products from other, smaller companies, and then relabel them as their own, often giving little or no credit to the original designer. This started with MS-DOS (QDOS with some extra bugs and MS branding) and has continued ever since.

Don't forget how Microsoft was developing a GUI based OS with IBM and then quit on IBM, stole the technology and created Windows. IBm was left with OS/2. This practice has been repeated many times.

Microsoft had Excel, whcih was VERY good. Borland had Word, which was the best word processor. They squashed Word by making Excel only available through Office, whcich came with it's own word processor program. If you had a word processor, why buy Borland's???? This was not coincidence by the way. It was microsh1t bullying others.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: DaZ
I believe the new crown of bloatware goes to RedHat LINUX 8.0

What a fat piece of sh!t.

XP is incredibly well designed compaired to rh..

Im very surprised however, that AOL hasnt put 5 million icons all over it yet.

Wow, you need to learn about OSes

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: Electrode

Originally posted by: gopunk
if you're interested in a more detailed explanation (one that i can't give), have a read

Looks like a fairly long list of minor tweaks. Sure it improves performance, but this is the kind of thing that shoud go into a patch, not a $100+ OS upgrade.

<-- Still running Windows '98. no compelling reason to upgrade.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Electrode

Originally posted by: gopunk
if you're interested in a more detailed explanation (one that i can't give), have a read

Looks like a fairly long list of minor tweaks. Sure it improves performance, but this is the kind of thing that shoud go into a patch, not a $100+ OS upgrade.

well, a lot of these things were available in patches for 2000... but for stuff like the prefetch... i think that belongs in a new OS. regardless, you must admit that these changes would indicate something other than:

1. Windows is a piece of shit. Windows XP is an ugly collection of bloat and hacks hot glued to a core that hasn't changed much since 1994. Microsoft has no strong competition, so they have no motivation to improve their product. Other operating systems, like Linux and BSD, are changing all the time, not at the user interface level, but at the kernel level. That means REAL improvement thaat actually makes a difference. The only thing new versions of Windows add are more bloat and pretty pictures.

i use the product every day, if there wasn't a big difference, i think i would notice.

i know a lot (well, quite a few) very smart people that work at MS... you don't expect me to believe they just sit there all day twiddling their thumbs and thinking of ways to change icons.

btw only suckers pay retail

No self respecting software enginee or comp sci person would work there. I've seen many "book smart" people want to work there, but no one that is capable of doing things correctly wants to work there.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Oh yeah, never you mind that AMD charged more than $1000 when they were the first to hit 1GHz.

AMD was not the first to charge $1000! You're crazy or less than 12 years old.

The Pentium 100 was originally $1000 or so, same with Pentium 200, the Pentium Pro was $2000+ at first, Pentium 2 300mhz was $1000... Many, many Intel chips were more than $1000 before AMD came along with some competition.

first to hit 1ghz, he said

His point is that competition is healthy and reduces prices. It has nothingto do withthe 1 GHz barrier.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Microsoft has definitely stifled innovation, Netscape being an obvious example.

Intel though, doesn't deserve to be lumped into this discussion, IMO. If AMD had failed during it's foray into SS7/k6-x, then Intel could be accused of truly stifling innovation, however, innovation has actually expanded in the PC(x86) world since Intel locked(to a large extent) competition out. One could argue that Intel "tried" to stifle innovation though.

In an interview, Bill Gates was asked why Windows crashes so often. he responded, it's not windows, it's the programs that run in it that are coded improperly. It's just a shame the person didn't follow up with, why does Word crash so often?

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: sandorski
Microsoft has definitely stifled innovation, Netscape being an obvious example.

Intel though, doesn't deserve to be lumped into this discussion, IMO. If AMD had failed during it's foray into SS7/k6-x, then Intel could be accused of truly stifling innovation, however, innovation has actually expanded in the PC(x86) world since Intel locked(to a large extent) competition out. One could argue that Intel "tried" to stifle innovation though.

netscape stifled itself by being crappy

Yes, netscape has it's bugs in Windows.

Can you answer me this. Why does it work flawlessly in a real OS like UNIX? Rock SOLID!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NewSc2]

jeez, 9 posts in a row kherman. the Nef alarm is going off!

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: kherman

Originally posted by: sandorski
Microsoft has definitely stifled innovation, Netscape being an obvious example.

Intel though, doesn't deserve to be lumped into this discussion, IMO. If AMD had failed during it's foray into SS7/k6-x, then Intel could be accused of truly stifling innovation, however, innovation has actually expanded in the PC(x86) world since Intel locked(to a large extent) competition out. One could argue that Intel "tried" to stifle innovation though.

In an interview, Bill Gates was asked why Windows crashes so often. he responded, it's not windows, it's the programs that run in it that are coded improperly. It's just a shame the person didn't follow up with, why does Word crash so often?

word crashes for you?

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: kherman

Originally posted by: draggoon01
this article was mentioned in another thread. there was this one part that caught my attention:

Text

Bill is almost single-handedly responsible for destroying any real innovation in the software world, in a manner very similar to the way Intel destroyed any real innovation in computer architecture.

can someone explain what he's getting at/what he means?

as far as msft, i'm under the impression that them monopolizing with windows is in many ways a good thing because they've created a standard os to write programs for. and that this good mostly outweighs the bad they do (using their position to muscle out certain companies in their way).

as far as intel i don't know much of their history or tactics

Miscrosoft is easy. Until Windows 2000, none of the windows based OSes were OSes by the definition of what an OS is.

*cough* bullshlt *cough*

 

[0roo0roo]

Don't forget how Microsoft was developing a GUI based OS with IBM and then quit on IBM, stole the technology and created Windows. IBm was left with OS/2. This practice has been repeated many times.

don't paint ibm as the big victim now.. ibm was well on its way to shafting ms which was a small company at the time. they got what they deserved.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I believe the author's point was that given 90+% of a market, innovation rarely happens. How long did Intel sit at 450MHz? When AMD came out with the Athlon good things happened for the consumers. And not only for AMD customers. CPU clock speed rose the fastest they have in recent times and continue to rise at an amazing rate. What changed? AMD got a bigger piece of the pie when it came to main stream and high end CPUs. Big enough that Intel took notice.

Can this happen with MS? Sure it can. Linux made MS realise that some of thier products were crap. (Windows ME anyone?) And suddenly the daily crashing wasn't acceptable, if you've ever been in an IRC channel and see people posting two week, two month, 6 month, year+ uptimes, how many are Win98? Sure, a few of the two week ones, but none of the two month ones. When MS set to release 2000 and XP, they showed that stability and usability _IS_ something that can happen. Something that was a trade off during the 9x/NT days was now a combined trait.

Very rarely are monopolies good. You'd be suprized at how much a little bit of competition can help a company out

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: kherman

Originally posted by: sandorski
Microsoft has definitely stifled innovation, Netscape being an obvious example.

Intel though, doesn't deserve to be lumped into this discussion, IMO. If AMD had failed during it's foray into SS7/k6-x, then Intel could be accused of truly stifling innovation, however, innovation has actually expanded in the PC(x86) world since Intel locked(to a large extent) competition out. One could argue that Intel "tried" to stifle innovation though.

In an interview, Bill Gates was asked why Windows crashes so often. he responded, it's not windows, it's the programs that run in it that are coded improperly. It's just a shame the person didn't follow up with, why does Word crash so often?

word crashes for you?

Try loading a VERY large document. Not only does it crash, it basically freezs a PC.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: kherman

Originally posted by: draggoon01
this article was mentioned in another thread. there was this one part that caught my attention:

Text

Bill is almost single-handedly responsible for destroying any real innovation in the software world, in a manner very similar to the way Intel destroyed any real innovation in computer architecture.

can someone explain what he's getting at/what he means?

as far as msft, i'm under the impression that them monopolizing with windows is in many ways a good thing because they've created a standard os to write programs for. and that this good mostly outweighs the bad they do (using their position to muscle out certain companies in their way).

as far as intel i don't know much of their history or tactics

Miscrosoft is easy. Until Windows 2000, none of the windows based OSes were OSes by the definition of what an OS is.

*cough* bullshlt *cough*

Actually, not bullshit. An application prior to the latest windows versions would actually draw to the screen. A Real OS does not allow programs to draw directly tto the screen.

 

[LordSnailz]

No self respecting software enginee or comp sci person would work there. I've seen many "book smart" people want to work there, but no one that is capable of doing things correctly wants to work there.

Please ... what a load of crap, self respectign software engr... yes I agree there might be a few percentage of people that would no want to work at msft but you want to tell me that a person will give up working for a company like msft versus a smaller company? You do not realize all the perks that comes with working for a company that is a leader in it's industry - more specifically, their willingness to improve their employees carreer development. Join the company and have them send you seminars, and classes and get paid for it, that alone is enough to work for msft.

-ls

 

[Electrode]

kherman is my new hero.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: kherman
No self respecting software enginee or comp sci person would work there. I've seen many "book smart" people want to work there, but no one that is capable of doing things correctly wants to work there.

oh please

when you actually start working in the real world come back and talk to us.

 

[zeruty]

Hey, when you work at MS, there is all the free pop(soda) you want... so I guess that makes up for the millions of consumers that microsoft has ripped off!

 

[Kelvrick]

I'm going to agree with DaZ on this one. Imagine what it'll be like if there were say Windows, Doors, Skylights, and a Windshield OS which all held the same amount of Market share. Now think of Windows and Mac OS. How often is software developed for both Windows and Mac OS? Now split all of those things down an additional three OS's that software companies have to develop for and you'll see how much software innovation you get. Ok, sure, you go and do a quad-boot, but with all you b1tches in here complaining about how underappreciated techs are and how little people understand computers, you go and explain to your grandpa why he has to choose this OS if he wants to manage his taxes, and choose this OS if he wants to take a look at a webcam his brother is broadcasting.

Microsoft might stifle OS innovation, but the single-handedly expanded software innovation just because software developers can have a single base to work from. Still bagging on them, go tell someone to develop a Unix OS that'll be as user-friendly to the most illiterate computer person their is and I'll shut the F up. Even windows, with all its pretty bloat-ware is confusing people and you expect them to run RH or something similar? They'd be better off with a mac.

Also, you're saying Win XP drivers are crap and you might be right, but they've saved my life plenty of times. You try finding every single necessary driver for some laptop or desktop that was randomly brought to you for fixing and get back to me in a week since you don't even know the hardware components that are installed. I install WIN Xp on most of those things, and at most I have to find one or two more drivers and its up and running like a champ.

ALso, you people who are saying MS is ripping off consumers, have you ever walked into a store and payed 400 bucks for Office? If so, you're a dumb@ss.

<== monkey dance

 

[LordSnailz]

Hey, when you work at MS, there is all the free pop(soda) you want... so I guess that makes up for the millions of consumers that microsoft has ripped off!

re-read my post - my point was that it's complete bullsh!t to say "No self respecting software enginee or comp sci person would work there", I was not justifying how msft was trying to make up for "ripping off" it's consumers.

-ls

 

[nord1899]

I notice a lot of people are saying the because of MS OS's innovation can occur. The problem here is that MS doesn't play nice with non-MS software and that kills innovation.

Yes it is true that because of the monopoly (90%+ market share I think counts as a monopoly) on the OS by MS the computer world is better off. Thus, developers can focus on creating good software for one platform rather than okay software for lots of platforms.

The problem is that MS abuses that monopoly and stifles innovation in products outside of the OS. Hell, they also stifle in the OS by not playing fair with other OS's (think Samba and Kerebos).

The thing is, MS is a business. Their job is to maximize shareholder value (god I hate that phrase) and they do a good job of it by not playing fair. Unfortunately, we get screwed in the technical side of things, like innovation.

BTW, most of the innovations that come out in MS software/hardware were developed by other companies first. MS just innovated on how to market it.