Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is Dead

paulgraham.com

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#91
post #43

Microsoft Research is one of the top 10 computer science research organizations in the world. Some of the work done there (such as the Kinect) is game changing and will continue to be a resource Microsoft can draw upon. As an MIT PhD student, I know many people who are eager to work at Microsoft research. [1] http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=7... [2] http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2…

But aside from vacuuming up some talent, Microsoft Research isn't going to be a part of any startup or VC's equation.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#92
post #39
post #25

According to analytics, I've had 20,000 hits to my website in the last 30 days. 75% of those are reported to be running a windows operating system. As much as I respect the interesting point of view presented in the article, I sometimes wonder if sites like Hacker News and Slashdot don't put us all into some sort of exceptionally nerdy bubble-think. Like with the last week or so when everything I read seemed to say "…

I think you are making the wrong point. Windows is not dead and that's the truth but Microsoft is dead cause they are not doing any Web apps. They are not doing something innovative. They are just doing what they always did: writing Windows (a horrible OS) which comes with Internet Explorer a horrible browser which is not standard web conform. They are still earning money but they are laying on their success AND I th…

because "innovative" = "we are copying something that's been around for decades on desktops, but now we're doing it ON THE WEB!!!/ON MOBILE PHONE!!!" ;P

(this is of course a great advance from the previous generation of thrilling innovation which was all about copying something that's been around for decades on mainframes/minicomputers, but ON A MICRO!!!) ;P ;P

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#93
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice that IBM and Apple revenues are higher, because they selling mostly hardware. MSFT selling mostly software with exception of XBox.

This isn't true for IBM. In 2009 IBM's revenue from hardware was less than 17% from total revenue. http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2009/2009_ibm_annual.pdf

Services revenue is mostly consultants salaries too. What I mean, that software and advertisement margins are generally higher, than for hardware and services.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#95
post #29
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like products like Windows 7 and the Kinect among other things are a sign of a rally from the Microsoft camp. Agree / disagree?

I don't think Win7 is a sign that MS is making a comeback; it's the final product that Vista was a massive public beta for. I don't know anyone who loves it - the usual opinion of people who choose to use it is "good enough". The Kinect is pretty impressive though. I wonder what the per-unit cost is for MS - are they making a direct profit on sales?

I disagree. I know lots of people who love it but, really, neither of us are being scientific and we're both just making sweeping generalisations on an internet forum that are based on hear-say.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#96
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We switched an entire team of about 10 people to Ubuntu just because we couldnt afford to buy any more Windows licenses. The only thing the team missed was Office and had a few issues with audio/video plugins for the browser which we solved mostly without any headaches. They re now happily using Google docs and Open Office. Unfortunately, we are a race of habit and being served tea instead of coffee every morning is…

I would seriously rather switch OS's than switch to tea from coffee :)

Between switching to Windows and switching to tea, I would go with tea. Switching to *BSD, OTOH, would probably be better than tea.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#97
post #90
post #8

I remember reading somewhere that IBM makes something like $8bn per year still from mainframe computer sales. If IBM are doing that - two major computer architecture iterations along the line - (client-server and now cloud coming along), then that bodes well for Microsoft's survival, but perhaps not their relevance. Startups aren't going to go after highly conservative organisations like banks who won't risk changing…

> like banks who won't risk changing from mainframes for no obvious gain. So there will be a market for Microsoft technologies Comparing Microsoft products with the kind of reliability banks require from mainframes misses the point. No product Microsoft offers can match 5 nines outside a controlled environment (and most probably, neither inside one)

Perhaps the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.

Certain enterprise customers will always want to work with what they know, (i.e. typically Windows XP and Microsoft Office currently.) So this will be the long tail that Microsoft will coast along, if/when consumers migrate their personal computing to other platforms. Granted, there are certain situations when using an older technology such as mainframes makes complete sense, and there is little benefit to risk a major system upgrade; but there are many other situations where not upgrading seems lunacy (e.g. in an era when people want to have much of their banking online, the old mainframes in the background struggle to cope with the demand.)

As an aside, I interned at a bank where one of the tasks I did was adding HTML tags to predefined paragraphs that were in plain English. I did this in Excel, manually, line by line, on a PC sporting Windows XP and a 15" monitor. This could have been done in seconds with a shell script if anyone there had a clue. This kind of ignorance is a godsend to Microsoft who will continue to sell software licences to clueless companies for the foreseeable future.

Post reply on HN