Post-Gates Microsoft - What they should do to stay alive...

[elppa]

Best on screen font rendering.

[1] Best is highly subjective. On my machine characters with larger font sizes look have blocky edges in Vista, not so using the Quartz model.
[2] They only went system wide anti aliasing with Vista, in XP it was an option, buried deep in a couple of layers of dialog boxes.
[3] Many businesses and users still use XP, many companies use 2000, which doesn't have any clear type support.

Vista shipped in 2007. For the majority of the last decade, Mac users saw this:

Whilst Windows users saw this:

Now they see this:

If we're looking for real strengths of Windows through the years over other systems, then font rendering isn't one.

 

[clevin]

1. Not if you go to all the different Processor architectures in use, and the hardware used in those platforms. Linux has the edge there. Even so, just being compatible with a lot of hardware is meaningless.
2. Linux isn't open?
3. What? They all have speed advantages in the right situation, Windows is fastest for 3D games(and Mac is quite slow at that on the other hand), but that's all I can think of in terms of Windows being faster. I admit I don't use every type of software on the planet.
4. Largest number, once again pretty much meaningless just like hardware.
5. Entirely opinion, I think Windows has the worst font rendering.

I thought you were serious I won't get into argument and personal opinions, if you think linux and OSX support more hardwares and softwares, ...... I dont think I care about convincing anybody. There are 1 billion computer users out there after all.

about above Mr. e,,, who posted a whole screen of screen capture. first XP has systemwide AA, its fine you want to argue its not on by default and need 5 clicks and 3 level of penal to get it, but its there 7 years ago. You don't need to imply all windows users, there are almost 1 billion of them, even if only a small fraction of them "discovered" that option, there are still more windows users saw AA fonts than all OSX users add up together. Vista has 14% market share, by the way.

Its fine you like OSX's bold font, Again, Im not interested in convincing anybody here, 1 billion users out there. I respect their judgment. 95% of the reviewers think safari for windows' font suck, i know you dont agree, but there is no one opinion dedicate the conclusion, I don't think all reviewers are stupider than you or me.

 

[BlakTornado]

Microsoft needs to stop laying it's eggs in lots of different nests, leaving them and hoping they hatch by some sort of miracle.

They need to sit down and focus on their main aspirations - not the billions of markets that they're trying to enter now. Sure, they're a big company, but am I the only one thinking that the Microsoft monopoly is more of a Microsoft desperation?

Microsoft need to admit defeat on minor things such as SilverLight and Zune, and then focus on more successful things, like Windows, Xbox and Windows Live (well, Windows Live Mail and Messenger, at least).

 

[martychang]

I thought you were serious I won't get into argument and personal opinions, if you think linux and OSX support more hardwares and softwares, ...... I dont think I care about convincing anybody. There are 1 billion computer users out there after all.

Never said Linux and OS X support more hardware and software, I said that the difference isn't meaningful, since the bases are all covered for hardware and software on either platform either way(With the possible exception of Linux missing a few apps for certain purposes).

I simply threw in the fact that Linux supports more than just Intel(and Itanium for some crippled server products), architectures like PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, Motorola, ARM, and pretty much anything else ever released, and the respective hardware for those architectures. That and Linux is much better with support for older Intel hardware than Windows.

 

[Dustman]

Never said Linux and OS X support more hardware and software, I said that the difference isn't meaningful, since the bases are all covered for hardware and software on either platform either way(With the possible exception of Linux missing a few apps for certain purposes).

I simply threw in the fact that Linux supports more than just Intel(and Itanium for some crippled server products), architectures like PowerPC, SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, Motorola, ARM, and pretty much anything else ever released, and the respective hardware for those architectures. That and Linux is much better with support for older Intel hardware than Windows.

Yeah but have fun looking for Linux drivers.. or even installing the operating system itself for that matter. Linux is useless unless you have experience outside Windows and OS X. I have tried several different distributions of Linux to try to rid myself of Microsoft, all my attempts failed. (and i definetly know my way around a computer)

 

[Eraserhead]

1. still compatible with largest number of hardwares.
2. open business mode that give end users as well as computer industry players (software makers, hardware makers) plenty of space to act and improve.
3. still run most apps faster than unix/linux/osx, sure you can argue about vulnerability with with or system booting speed, but strength out weigh others in this case, IMHO
4. still offers largest number of apps, games, productivity, all type. Now I admit thats an inherit advantages from years of domination, but hey, fact is fact, isn't it?
5. still offers best on screen font rendering. Now I admit again there is copyright issue that sort of prevent linux from improving. what can I say. copyleft is the way. I don't stand on the side of copyright, but i have to admit the fact.

I agree with 1, 2 and 4, 3 is probably true, but I'm not sure. 5 is complete rubbish, there is a reason newspaper production is done on the Mac and this is one of them. Windows may be better than Linux, but the Mac is definitely superior to both.

 

[chagla]

Yeah but have fun looking for Linux drivers.. or even installing the operating system itself for that matter. Linux is useless unless you have experience outside Windows and OS X. I have tried several different distributions of Linux to try to rid myself of Microsoft, all my attempts failed. (and i definetly know my way around a computer)

i second that.
i tried opensuse, fedora, centos, debian, slackware etc. they seem to be missing at least one crucial component. like the wireless card, or the graphics, sound i can live w/out. so i just had to revert back to windows. not that it was bad or wanted to get rid of, just wanted some tux*perience.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes IBM was massively successful before, and more so than today on the back of their large computers and previously tabulating machines. However I'd hardly call a company who made $2 billion net profit last quarter a failure. They are still worth about as much as Google and Apple.

I never called IBM a "failure." The point is they are objectively far less successful now than they were in their heyday, and the turning point was the 1980s, when they failed to grasp the importance of the desktop computer. In fact they managed to engineer handing over control of this industry to a very tiny company called Microsoft, which proceeded to eat their lunch for the next 15 years.

Perhaps if you don't recall how IBM was regarded during the decades of the '50s, '60s and '70s, you might think that they're a hugely successful company today. But if you do recall their peak years, you know that their status is substantially reduced, and it happened because they missed the transition to desktop computing about as completely as humanly possible.

 

[Eraserhead]

I never called IBM a "failure."

I just think "shadow of the former self" means failure, probably a cultural thing .

 

[IJ Reilly]

I just think "shadow of the former self" means failure, probably a cultural thing .

I don't think so... the expression should imply a substantially reduced status, which I believe applies in this case. IBM really was for many decades one of the world's most respected (and feared) corporations. During the '60s, they were subjected to possibly the most prominent antirust law enforcement action since Standard Oil. They were that powerful -- the Microsoft of their day, and then some. What's more, I think it's generally under-appreciated how completely IBM sabotaged their opportunities in desktop computing. They went beyond missing it -- they created the most dangerous competitor they'd ever faced, essentially out of whole cloth. That's a failure by any reckoning, wouldn't you say?

 

[MShock]

back to the real question before the weird debate about screen rendering, should MS be allowed to exist? Are they bad for business, good for competition? I still say they need to figure out who and what they are and freaking do it, meaning to be a software company, they have to open source. Maybe buy Novell or Norton for a linux kernal. Windows needs to refocus on developers much like Apple has and will with Snow Leopard.

 

[martychang]

I still say they need to figure out who and what they are and freaking do it, meaning to be a software company, they have to open source. Maybe buy Novell or Norton for a linux kernal. Windows needs to refocus on developers much like Apple has and will with Snow Leopard.

Erm, what? They don't need to buy anyone for a Linux kernel, they or anyone else can just start making a Linux OS as long as they don't include components which conflict with the GPL.

What they need to do is make a clean break from reverse compatibility in the main OS, do something like the OS 9 -> OS X transition, to a system that is manageable and secure. Make a filesystem with VMS/NTFS style permissions that doesn't suffer from uncontrolled fragmentation. Make a real OS with a real security model that's consistent. No registry, make the configuration plainly viewable text files that are clearly separated based on the application or subsystem they pertain to, and don't let just any program create such a text file in the system configuration area. Protect system locations, no more 3rd party developers dropping things in Windows\system32. Give power back to the Administrator user, and make people run as limited users: making and Administrator act as a limited user was never the answer. Get a stigma on the Administrator similar to the stigma of the root account in UNIX.

Or heck, join the party and make a Microsoft UNIX system. I would instantly give them another chance if they made a real UNIX OS.

 

[clevin]

back to the real question before the weird debate about screen rendering, 1 should MS be allowed to exist? 2Are they bad for business, good for competition? I still say they need to figure out who and what they are and freaking do it, 3meaning to be a software company, they have to open source. 4Maybe buy Novell or Norton for a linux kernal. Windows needs to refocus on developers much like Apple has and will with Snow Leopard.

1. well, allow, disallow? what can you do? and why do you do it?
2. yes, they are good for business, for all computer industry who are around it. Apple is bad for business, because it kills other hardware companies, as well as software companies.
3. Although I appreciate the open source idea. At this point, no way to mandate it. Apple isn't a open source company neither...
4. I think that's a illogical statement that convey no reasonable message......

 

[Eraserhead]

4. I think that's a illogical statement that convey no reasonable message......

Microsoft's frameworks all suck, so actually the second part of this is a fair point. See this for why.

 

[clevin]

Microsoft's frameworks all suck, so actually the second part of this is a fair point. See this for why.

I hope I completely understand the point that author trying to make, but too much technical terms. was it just all about interface and predefined functions of cocoa?

I know too few to argue which develop environment is better or easier. Maybe more contributors to this topic can help me understand more.

PS. I checked the discussion, even more confusing. OS life time is quite long, I will wait for it to fight out. If apple has anything better to offer, just do it. Less offensive PR might be a good start to establish a honest image of the company.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Or heck, join the party and make a Microsoft UNIX system. I would instantly give them another chance if they made a real UNIX OS.

Trivia question: Which company, Microsoft or Apple, had a Unix OS first?

 

[elppa]

Trivia question: Which company, Microsoft or Apple, had a Unix OS first?

Microsoft. Xenix was it?

 

[martychang]

Trivia question: Which company, Microsoft or Apple, had a Unix OS first?

Yes, they did, and it was Xenix. But I have no idea how I'd react if they were actually keeping it up to date in the background, never releasing it.

The point is they don't have one now, and with Linux and FreeBSD being as open as they are today I can hardly imagine they wouldn't have made a modern one by now if they intended to try. Time will tell though.

 

[JNB]

In answer to the original question, fire Ballmer. He thinks he's Jack Welch, but is more like Chris Farley.

There's really too much talent in Redmond for them not to be successful. MS's failures are that of leadership, not skill or ability in the trenches.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Microsoft. Xenix was it?

Yes, they did, and it was Xenix. But I have no idea how I'd react if they were actually keeping it up to date in the background, never releasing it.

The point is they don't have one now, and with Linux and FreeBSD being as open as they are today I can hardly imagine they wouldn't have made a modern one by now if they intended to try. Time will tell though.

Xenix it is. Microsoft didn't create Xenix, it was actually licensed from AT&T. The Intel port was performed by the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) which ended up owning it when Microsoft moved on to other things. Later, Microsoft tried to hamstring SCO's development of Xenix, and more recently it was discovered that Microsoft has some business relationship with SCO, particularly after SCO tried to make the case that Linux infringed on SCO's copyrights. It's quite a ball of wax and fertile ground for rumors and conspiracy theories.

 

[heatmiser]

This diary reads like a bunch of Zuners talking about what "the iPod should do to stay alive." The self-delusion required to entertain such a thought process is quite impressive.

 

[Eraserhead]

I hope I completely understand the point that author trying to make, but too much technical terms. was it just all about interface and predefined functions of cocoa?

I know too few to argue which develop environment is better or easier. Maybe more contributors to this topic can help me understand more.

He's written several articles (both linked at the top of the Cocoa one) on Windows development, and as a Windows developer for a number of years he highlights the large number of flaws which haven't been fixed for a long time, many of them existed in Windows in the 1980's are still exist today.

PS. I checked the discussion, even more confusing. OS life time is quite long, I will wait for it to fight out. If apple has anything better to offer, just do it. Less offensive PR might be a good start to establish a honest image of the company.

They do, which is why the Mac software scene isn't totally embarrassing.

 

[idyll]

I worry about the day Jobs leaves Apple more than I do about the day Gates leaves Microsoft.