Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 237 posts

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#161

Post by bee_rider »

ozim wrote: post #122
ghc wrote: post #66

It's interesting to read comments about this today, written through the lens of the present. I suspect many commenters were too young to really understand the level of dominance Microsoft had in the market circa from 1995-2005. Just look at this chart: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/143277-microsofts-shar... In 2004, outside of education and desktop publishing it was extremely rare to see an Apple computer at…

Agree with this take. It is also highly visible in nerd Linux circles where some people still think they fight to have Linux on Desktop. Linux on Desktop is irrelevant just as Microsoft pre 2005 is irrelevant. MSFT saw that cloud is the future and they are in that business and O365 is flagship product where Windows just a support nice to have part because they need OS so people can run their browser.

Linux on the desktop is irrelevant in the same way that a carpenter’s home woodworking projects are irrelevant. I mean they are but that’s sort of beside the point, right?

People who want to beat Microsoft with Linux on the desktop should stop worrying and enjoy our nice ecosystem of little programs for what it is.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#162

Post by schmichael »

Alternative title: antitrust works.

It didn't kill Microsoft. Microsoft isn't dead. However Microsoft does now have competitors. The takeaway here is that antitrust is fantastic for consumers and innovation.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#163

Post by umur »

As a side note, and to pg's point, Microsoft did make some very smart Web 2.0 acquisitions from Silicon Valley in the years since --most notably LinkedIn and Github--, and let them run relatively independently.

> So if they wanted to be a contender again, this is how they could do it: Buy all the good "Web 2.0" startups. They could get substantially all of them for less than they'd have to pay for Facebook.

>Put them all in a building in Silicon Valley, surrounded by lead shielding to protect them from any contact with Redmond.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#165

Post by caspper69 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #157
subsection1h wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who can choose what kind of computer they have will choose Apple over PC. FYI, this guy is a troll. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41153109

You are just doing yourself a disfavor by dismissing anybody who doesn't think exactly like you as non-human (a troll, a bot, a Russian, a heretic!). On that route, you'll end up living your life much less than to the fullest. I think your example speaks for this. Yes, I think that a graphical user interface would be excellent for a server. And I'm probably not the only one who would like that idea: Apple invested a…

> People who can choose what kind of computer they have will choose Apple over PC.

I have worked for an awful lot of people over the years, and given they could afford my services, I would guess they fall into the "people who can choose what kind of computer they will choose" category. Some could choose what kind of Ferrari they wanted, lol.

Your intuition is anecdotal. Plenty of people either don't care, or gasp prefer Windows. They are not stupid (I'm one of them, which I'd be happy to discuss with anyone, up to and including Mr. Torvalds).

An operating system is a tool to allow you to use your computer hardware and to run software. What fits your needs may not fit everyone's. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#166

Post by Ekaros »

whobre wrote: post #121
carlosjobim wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about being rich or not. People who can choose what kind of computer they have will choose Apple over PC. People who cannot choose will use work computers in their office with Windows installed, that corporate chose for them. People who do not want a computer at all will have neither PC or Mac. The majority of people do not want to have a computer – they see enough of them at work, and they are happy with th…

| People who can choose what kind of computer they have will choose Apple over PC. No, we will not.

You would have to pay me considerable sum of money to pick anything Apple over other options.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#167

Post by beart »

ethbr1 wrote: post #133
virgilp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was not meant to transform into "windows vs mac, which is better". But I happen to have used both, recently, and can tell: no, Windows got closer but is not quite there on the "having a shell" chapter. It still has too many, and too different. Powershell.NET is powerful, but is also "alien" to many people - you have to know .NET! Scripting is meant to be quick & hacky, not "real software that needs a release cyc…

Any of the "ultrabooks" with decent IPS screens, keyboards, metal bodies, and battery life. Dell XPSs were a decent option for the last decade+ (especially the refurbs), but Dell seems to be going through a rebranding exercise [0], so those will now be Dell Pro/Premium models? Maybe? [0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/01/the-end-of-an-era-de...

I've struggled for years with windows notebooks waking up from sleep/hibernate randomly, particularly the Dell models. Happens all the time, cooking itself inside my bag. Doesn't matter what sleep, power, etc settings I've messed with. Can explicitly put it to sleep and then stand there for 60 seconds and watch it wake itself back up. The built in power diagnostics features of windows are unable to explain why this happens, or in anyway prevent it.

This experience has kept me from spending money on any portable windows machine.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#168

Post by caspper69 »

dtquad wrote: post #43
baxtr wrote: post #9

What is this telling us about the stuff he writes with full conviction today?

He was wrong about Microsoft's death but correct about how AJAX making web apps feel more desktop-like would remove Microsoft's dominance in many categories and niches.

As a bit of trivia (because web apps have clearly outpaced native/desktop for a long while now), who was it that invented the XMLHttpRequest that formed the basis for AJAX?

The Outlook Web team @ Microsoft; it shipped with IE5.

I have a very complicated history with Microsoft products, but they have introduced a lot of technologies over the years that we all use, even die-hard MS haters.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#169

Post by n4r9 »

yellowstuff wrote: post #117

I'll admit that this is a charitable reading of the essay, but I think that MS was dead in 2007 and is still dead in 2025, in the sense that Graham was focused on. In the 90s startup founders were scared that if they started a software company MS would copy their idea and crush them. Bill Gates used to talk about how he wanted to "monopolize" software before the lawyers caught up with him. By 2007 MS was mostly irrel…

That's a legit take. But I also think PG conveys his point poorly. He uses terms like "no one" and "dangerous" - and even "dead" - in a non-standard way without clarifying their meaning. Perhaps the meaning was more obvious to members of the startup scene in the 2000s, but then he's tying himself into a subcultures's perspective, which I feel is just as problematic.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#170

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

bkfunk wrote: post #81
ghc wrote: post #66

It's interesting to read comments about this today, written through the lens of the present. I suspect many commenters were too young to really understand the level of dominance Microsoft had in the market circa from 1995-2005. Just look at this chart: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/143277-microsofts-shar... In 2004, outside of education and desktop publishing it was extremely rare to see an Apple computer at…

“That today Microsoft is a giant company is irrelevant...” I am not too young to remember the old Microsoft. To say that Microsoft is “irrelevant” is so myopic. Despite Tesla, GM is still relevant. Despite AWS, DB2 mainframes are still relevant. Heck, I have to work with EBCDIC data, a format designed to not produce holes in punchcards that are too close together . Even when we eventually move to a modern db, decades…

"Dead" apparently means "no longer the unquestioned industry leader" - which seems like an odd definition of "dead" to me, but ok.

The industry in question being the union of personal desktop and laptop computers, associated software, and internet-related technologies.

What actually happened was the internet-related sector broadened to include new sub-sectors - mobile, search, social, media, cloud, e-commerce, and ad tech - all of which Microsoft either ignored, failed at, or didn't dominate.

The old industries are still there but they're the tail, not the dog.

The dog is far more consumer and consumer-adjacent. MS culture was always more aligned with corporate goals and office productivity. MS never got social and lifestyle computing, which is where the industry was heading. It still doesn't, even in gaming.

AI is going to see a similar shift to a completely different mode of computing, but it's too early to tell how that will work out. At a guess it's going to be much more directly political than anything we've seen so far. (Not in a good way, IMO.)

Post reply on HN