I would like Microsoft's Developer Division to start supporting Linux more ... Windows servers are too expensive for me making scale-out strategies a PITA and IMHO technically inferior to Linux from a startup perspective. Biztalk/Webspark are nice initiatives, but not enough. And I would totally shell out the cash for a MSDN subscription / Visual Studio if I could choose Linux for deployment. Better yet, collaborate…
Collaboration with Mono on .NET would be the "killer" news for me. With Java looking increasingly shaky, it'd be nice to have a second "write-once, run-everywhere" paradigm. While this may not end up being the greatest of reasons, a lot of my classmates shy away from .NET languages/MSFT technologies because they're more difficult to develop in Linux. Getting rid of that complaint would be super awesome.
I was really expecting Microsoft to launch a some ad campaign about .NET and mono after all of this Java/Oracle stuff hit the news. Seems like a missed opportunity.
Of course, as a developer, I hope there to be not just marketing and have a real initiative to bridge the divide.
I'd say try to compile the document with things that are actually realistic. Many of the suggestions here are akin to having a meeting with Obama and telling him 'Shut down the military and divert the money to solve world hunger!' and similar statements that may sound good but in reality aren't going to be taken seriously.
If you send through a document to Ballmer saying he should drop .NET, throw away Windows Phone 7 and base Windows on Unix, he isn't going to be likely to take any of your suggestions seriously (even if you did throw in ones that were realistic and made sense).
I'm sure you already realise this, given you're smart enough to have been asked to produce such a document, but focus on slightly smaller things that could actually make a difference.
Kinda? The problem is that once a competitor shows up and does well (Google search, iPhone), Microsoft flails with their legacy stuff (Windows CE Mobile Phone Series 6.5, Microsoft Windows Media Audio PlaysForSure) for a couple years, and then apes the competitor as much as possible while throwing anybody who was invested in their products under a bus of incompatibility.
All out of desperation to beat their competitors. But you don't win by beating your competitors. In 1997 Steve Jobs said, "we have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose." Well, Microsoft has to let go of the notion that for Microsoft to win, Apple and Google have to lose.
So the best decision would be to give up on the OS and focus on applications such as MS Office and XBOX game centre for iOS and Android devices. Alternatively buy RIM... This is not a viable "growth strategy." MS has worked on these boring enterprise products for 15 years already, and buying RIM and developing Office is more of the same. I can't foresee any new tech coming from these boring strategies. MS's ceiling f…
My thinking on this was that if they bought RIM they would greatly increase their marketshare in those "boring" but profitable "enterprise products". Lets face it the Blackberry OS sux, even v6 is a poor iOs clone and Windows mobile has reasonable enterprise penetration but not great. So put the next version of the Blackberry on a decently powered hardware and WP7. Offer activesync as an option a silver option and BE…
I don't think you have any clue on what you're talking about.
Dog food their own software and systems more, and where it's unpleasant to use - improve them. Far too much of my Microsoft using experience is of a solid technology which is idiotically annoying, and a new version which ups both desirable features and irritation at the same time. I mean the remote desktop client which has a ton of user experience flaws which hasn't improved for years, then developed another security…
They don't just have to dogfood it — they need to do so in a manner such that they get a fresh Out Of Box Experience at least once per week. Make it so they can't get comfortable in their customized setups for long, make it so that they have to confront the defaults and the byzantine ridiculousness involved in getting rid of them.
As it is now, they'd lose every developer's entire Monday to inane wizards, waiting for installers, and dismissing pestering dialog boxes.
Windows needs proper package management. Having each application be responsible for its own installation, uninstallation[0] and updates is so last millennium. Debian and its derivatives have done a good job of it in the Linux world, though they haven't done as well as they could at convincing third-parties to integrate. Google Chrome is an example of how to do integration right: the download is a .deb, and installing…
It's called MSI, the downloaded files may behave like they're standalone exes, but they're really just bundles of data and scripts for the Windows Installer to take care of. Apple's PKG / Installer.app setup on OS X is very similar. Both are clear platform defaults, with nearly all non-legacy shit using them.
In Vista Microsoft implemented a central update mechanism / repository for third-party drivers, but it's fairly hidden from the user. Apple did something similar in 10.6 for on-demand printer drivers (which previously took up 3gb in the default install) and optional OS features like Rosetta.
Neither could realistically get away with implementing anything that looked like a desktop App Store, no matter how many convenient side channels and alternate repos there were. The amount of drama that would go down just isn't worth it to them.
Windows needs proper package management. Having each application be responsible for its own installation, uninstallation[0] and updates is so last millennium. Debian and its derivatives have done a good job of it in the Linux world, though they haven't done as well as they could at convincing third-parties to integrate. Google Chrome is an example of how to do integration right: the download is a .deb, and installing…
It's called MSI, the downloaded files may behave like they're standalone exes, but they're really just bundles of data and scripts for the Windows Installer to take care of. Apple's PKG / Installer.app setup on OS X is very similar. Both are clear platform defaults, with nearly all non-legacy shit using them. In Vista Microsoft implemented a central update mechanism / repository for third-party drivers, but it's fair…
People whining about it is probably a good indication that it's worth doing. If Microsoft fails to do things that are good for all of its users and most of its developers because somebody might bitch about it, the company is as good as dead.
Howdy,
10 years ago, I was a happy user of Microsoft products and could not see any reason to use anything else. I never minded paying for software. I still don't mind, although now, all of the software I use is free(legally free). I don't even allow Microsoft software on my network, because I don't trust it. What drove me away from Microsoft was a steady history of the company lying to me and treating it's customers with contempt. Sometimes I hear that Microsoft has gotten better, but many things, including recently the behavior concerning Microsoft Office XML shows me otherwise. I disliked Linux when I started with it, but I did not appreciate paying money to be treated like dirt and I forced myself to convert. I think I understand the economic forces that drove Microsoft, but I think you were too short sighted. You looked on consumers as people who had little choice but to knuckle under to you. No consumer wants the DRM you crippled Windows Vista and 7 with. No sensible company wants an unreliable OS, which is all you offer now. I have discussed the unreliable nature of Windows with several senior MS engineers and they almost all agree about my points. One senior designer did not, although he could never find and deliver to me the evidence he though he had to the contrary.
I am more productive now with Linux than I ever was with Microsoft products, and I feel much better about it, too.
It seems to me that Microsoft is on it's way to irrelevance and I think there is very little chance you will reform. You think the actions you take are defensible. Most of them are, but that is not the only standard that matters. I feel dirty when I have to use Microsoft products now and that is 100 percent driven by your choices. I convert people to Linux every month. I still have an open mind, but I would need to see a real difference at Microsoft to change my mind.
Thank you for asking.
Some points: - It's annoying in this day and age to be forced into using the entire MS Stack when I need to work with one specific technology. For example: if I want to test a web app on various versions of IE, I have to run Windows. OK fine, even though IE is the only browser that is tied to one OS, I'll let that go. However, if I want to use the Microsoft-provided free MS Virtual Machine images, I have to run them…
> However, if I want to use the Microsoft-provided free MS Virtual Machine images, I have to run them on Virtual PC despite the fact that I have a perfectly good VMWare installation. On my Mac, this means running windows on VMWare, and then Virtual PC inside that virtual machine. This is insanity. I'm trying to support your product, you should be making it as easy as possible for me. Even Apple ported Safari to Windows.
To be honest, Apple is much much worse in this sense. I can buy Windows X and install it in a VM of my choice. Try this with OS X. And the only reason I need it is to port my app to their platform, potentially enhancing their ecosystem.
1) In Outlook, please stop turning email addresses into annoying underlined names that can't be edited.
2) If history is any guide the trend will swing back towards client-side apps at some point. If you want to make the OS relevant again you need to show us some awesomeness that simply can't be reproduced in a browser.