The end of Microsoft?

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/29/the-end-of-microsoft-a-door-opens-to-a-new-cloud/?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

As we try to keep pace with these changes to a new computing industry, we are left with only two choices: innovate or die. Microsoft like DEC before it, and IBM (IBM) before it, tried too long to hold on to its Windows model believing it was permanent in an industry of impermanence. But it didn’t work out that way. Google outsmarted Microsoft into the Internet, and it dominated the next Internet paradigm. Now Apple is the clear winner in the new mobile paradigm.

Never saw an ISO standard it wouldn't attempt to game.

I swear to God, they'd screw with ASCII if they could.

...I'd change ASCII if I could. Instead of having so many damned control characters, I'd throw in combining diacritical marks and a few other characters like ß. We could be be encoding all Western European languages with 7-bit characters, and by adding Greek letters, more math and punctuation symbols in the next 128 characters, 8-bit encoding would go a long, long way before we'd have to switch over to other encodings like UTF-8.

ASCII may be well established, but it sucks.

They DID screw with ASCII.

They've convinced the public that their malware is a part of the computing experience.

As if a pc is some "enchanted" device that is subject to whimsical bouts of not following instructions.

You'll have to displace the vast majority of corporate networks and server environments before you even become a significant blip on the radar.

Does MS have its share of problems? Yup. But (as is mentioned throughout the comments on the article), MS isn't going anywhere and the article is written by an obvious fanboy. MS operating systems will continue to be the industry standard for a long time to come (unless you can persuade the majority of companies to spend millions if not billions of dollars to migrate to another environment).

It's entirely unrealistic to pretend that Microsoft is going anywhere.

It will be morphing. The name will be around, but it will probably ultimately be a different company. The issue will become, how long. Developers no longer fear it. Truth is, they probably fear Apple more.

is saying is that MS has been either unwilling or unable to adapt to the changing market. MS became conservative. They were more interested in maintaining the status quo instead of innovating.

Some have criticized Apple for not going after enterprise. They didn't go after enterprise because if they did, Microsoft would have crushed them. They went after the home market and content delivery.They knew that sooner or later those home users will find ways to integrate their iPhones, iPods, and iPads into their businesses.

It was an end run, something like what an insurgent would do. They avoided direct conflict, opting for a war of attrition.

which integrate Hyper-V (virtual machines for those unware), etc. I can build a single physical server running multiple Hyper-V sessions (each of which can be running Unix, other Windows OS'es, etc.) for less than half of what it would cost be to build a VMWare server doing the same thing.

Unless and until Apple can compete in the networking and server markets, Microsoft won't suffer in the least. The vast majority of home users have been most willing to adopt a technology they use at work so they don't have to learn something new. That will continue to be Windows OS'es for a LONG time to come.

Apple's specialty, for quite some time now, has been gimmicks and toys. The iPad while cool and high-tech is not a practical tool, it's an oversized toy. The iPhone and iPod are not going to put Microsoft out of business. And I guarantee that despite the many benefits of OS-X, there isn't going to be a time in the next 50 years when it poses a significant threat to Windows market share.

The established user base is simply too high. The cost of migrating to a new platform is just not an expense any sane business would undertake.

A very large segment of the world population know the way of mobile devices. Why lug around a keyboard and mouse when you can do it all with fingertips. Laptops are heavy and expensive, why carry one when you can whip out your mobile phone/iPad and stay in touch that way?

Apple makes servers for small shops and small render farms. They are not competing with the mega monoliths in the server market. They are more into content delivery and creation.

The market is changing, and what OS is being used at the receptionist's desk will mean nothing.

There is currently no way you could successfully validate a cloud environment for things such as medical records, etc.

For businesses, server consolidation with one physical server housing multiple virtual servers which host the various business applications will be the wave of the present and future.

There are currently no viable methods of cloud computing which will combine sufficient speed, security and accessibility to provide a real alternative to the current standard.

Ever worked for a company that has severe security restrictions such as an FDA regulated business, financial institution, etc.?

Are you familiar with HIPAA laws? Are you familiar with the constraints and required security of data associated with personal and individual data that many companies maintain?

No?

Then I suggest you learn something about them before you assume that cloud computing can meet those requirements, and especially before you try to draw a comparison between those requirements and a web browser.

old Army spook, I have little faith in any security scheme.

No matter how careful, sooner or later someone will break through. You have to have several classifications like you see in the intel business. Some can be in the clear, some restricted, and some has to be bolted down securely. Cloud computing has its place, but I wouldn't be using it at Ft Meade.

Have you thought about the corporate and personal security risks with cloud computing? People thinks it's just about themselves and their precious ability to Facebook / Twitter / You Tube. Corporations are terrified of industrial espionage, and of violation of customer's identity and information. Many will not let employees bring in flash drives, much less cell phones with cameras or video recording capability. Many places doing so is grounds for termination. You think I want someone with access to my financial information blathering away on their iPhone to their "friends" wherever? The history of modern computing and the 'net shows their are plenty of electronic thieves everywhere trying to hack everything they can to steal whatever they can. And then the grandiose idea of cloud computing comes along and puts all that information out from behind a corporate or personal firewall where it can easily be stolen. These people spouting off about cloud remind me of the idiots who used to preach about the "paperless office".

the acceptance of hardware that is designed for the cloud. Yes, security is a big concern for business no matter the device or OS.

The end user at a coffee house in Wisconsin doesn't care if it is a cloud or an app on their desktop, just as long as the device works.

The paperless office didn't make much sense even back then.

"what OS is being used at the receptionist's desk will mean nothing."

Except for that his computer and the billions and billions of other offices and homes around the world actually need a useful device that they can do real work and multitasking on, rather than a fun gadget that is ONLY useful for communication.

Sure the I-pad is a neat gadget but no serious company is going to switch from laptops to Ipads because you can't multitask and they just aren't powerful enough and big enough to do work on. It is a web surf, game playing device. Not a work device.

Apple has ceased to compete with Microsoft because they realized they couldn't compete in the OS and Office Application businesses so they followed the direction of the I-pod and are focused more on mobile entertainment.

The operative words in the article were "innovate or die."


The first iPod was limited. Over time it changed into an entertainment center. It's not what the iPad is now, what will it be in 5 or 10 years.

It's not the device, it's what people do with it.

it is meant to be used in conjunction with. So Apple thinks everyone needs a computer first, a cell phone second, and then also an I-pad on top of that? Yeah, right.

In 5-10 years they will still be in the same bind in that there is no room for improvement for a device that only fits between two other more important devices. It will never be as portable as a cell phone and will never be as powerful and as useful as a laptop. It's true, it will replace a notepad for many rich people to take to meetings and may take the place of small computer items in certain professions, but the screen is too small for your typical office use.

It is the "Segway" of the technology industry. Super hyped, too expensive, and will never take the place of walking (the cheap solution) and cars (the expensive and more than 5 miles away solution).

and other such functions. I bet in a short time it will be seen on stage as a musical instrument. DJ's will love em. I've already seen some beautiful art being created on them. Movies on them will knock your eyes out. As a media delivery system, it will do just fine.

Norway's prime minister used an iPad to take care of affairs of state while he was stranded due to the volcano.

You can use the iWork suite, read and edit documents.

You can use it for sales, for inventory, for networking.

actually two of them.

It does not do end notes and footnotes (Which happens to be something I need)

Nor does it track changes in a document... again something I need.

It is not that they will not write these two items into the program, if need be... but shall we say that the IPAD is not exactly useful for academic\legal writing?

So that is one major point where it fails to deliver.

Yep, the multi tasking is coming (OS 4), but this only tells me that they released this before it was ready for prime time.

And yes, it will be a good device for some things... music production perhaps, some art production. But it sucks for others.

I know you LOVE apple products. I USE a macbook (typing from it right now) and my IPOD touch is my PDA... but that does not mean I am blind to the obvious and nasty limitations currently to the IPAD. A netbook killer it ain't.

Oh and on the we are idiots department, who was the genius that did not include a camera on it?

It will become more useful as time goes on, just like the iPod and iPhone. Remember the iPod just played music when it first came out.

who actually claimed it would be one.

And I am actually betting their sales are not that good. Remember that IPHONE Prototype that was ahem lost to the wild? That is marketing 101 when a shiny is not doing that well. It is not Apple... it is marketing 101.

And it reminds me of their last attempt at the cloud environment... remember the Macbook Air? That one did not pick up steam due to the PRICE POINT.

machine, but it was too expensive.

as a book reader, media thingy... I'd have no trouble dropping 200 on one (base model)... alas I have a Touch... and I use it already to do all that the Pad does.

And for work I use a Netbook that does all that I need it to do for work... word does footnotes and end notes and plays well with Pages. Which reminds me, Pages on the IPAD is older code. It is not playing well with Word, a problem of 2006 Pages.

if I find it for the right price...

Otherwise, not really. I am not in the market.

I considered one for hubby, going back to school, but that thing about footnotes and end notes mean that a netbook makes far more sense for him.

And for him the WINDOWS OS makes more sense... since switching between OS's is not easy. Me, I don't care, but he does. Though he MIGHT use the Macbook in which case I will buy Word for it... he is far more familiar with it...

auto repairs come first.

before the iPad.

You need a screen of a certain size in order to Excel or Word or Access or web develop or whatever productively, and the Ipad is too small for this stuff.

I do a minor amount of stock trading and stuff so a friend was trying to tell me how great the I-pad is for that. Well...I guess it's cool if you feel like you need to look at stock quotes whenever, wherever, but it's just too small for any kind of research or comparisons or anything that is actual *useful* to me and my stock trading. It takes so much time to view and scroll around to view a few pages and actually get to the content I'm looking for beyond just the actual stock quote itself, that I'd rather just wait until I get home and do it on a laptop.

I know it will be helpful for some people, maybe professions who make house visits and need to take notes? But they're always just going to take those notes back to their "real" software on their "real" computer to process and store the information.

today to the Mac store... so I looked at Evernote (Yes I pay for the service)... and in the IPAD it looks rather slick. Hell would be the first download for me.

I have been known to edit quite a bit of text on an IPAQ, using textmaker (which tracks notes, and does footnotes in a screen that is actually smaller than my IPOD Touch)... so it also a measure of the limitations they have chosen to put into the software. I mean Win CE has software capable of doing both footnotes and tracking changes... and that is oh six years ago.



But if you are into digital art... it is ideal... there are several proggies that will save in PSD, which GIMP, Corel Painter and of course Photoshop will open. And for digital plain air work it is more than just ideal.

The music creating app is meant to well play and create music.

For a game platform, I am in love.

And for media consumption it is ideal.

But a netbook killer (one claim jobs made at one point) it is not.

Microsoft's server offerings start well above "free" in price.

Server 2008R2 is a fine server OS - far better than even the initial Server 2008 offering. But to suggest that using that and HyperV is *cheaper* than using a unix/linux and VMware Server is just plain wrong.

the same number of servers and applications I currently have implemented would cost about 4-5 times as much as I have tied up in 2008R2

VMWare is not free. A dual core virtualization host license costs $5,000. That doesn't include the administration software.

The only limitations are processors per guest OS (2) and the amount of RAM per guest OS (8GB). The VIX management interface is free, and distributed with the VMware Server package.

Provided your guest OS does not need more than 2 processors or 8GB of RAM, free VMWare server on free Linux is far cheaper to implement than any MS solution.

I'm not saying it's the perfect thing for your deployment - but I am saying that you are wrong to claim that VMware costs more to implement than MS HyperV.

http://www.vmware.com/technology/whyvmware/calculator/?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Virtualization Host (2CPU Dual Core 16 GB RAM, $5000) (2CPU Quad Core 32 GB RAM, $8000)

A single one of my servers is running 2 x quad core CPU's with a minimum of 36GB of RAM.

A 2008 R2 Standard license costs under $1,000 (or around $2,000 for the Enterprise edition) and includes the hosting and administration software for unlimited VM's. That's significantly less than the VMWare option.

Additionally, if you just want the Hyper-V server (i.e. no underlying 2008 R2 license), that's free. http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx

I have nothing against VMWare, but it's not free.

http://www.vmware.com/products/server/

The free VMware Server is based upon VMware’s proven virtualization technology. With this robust yet easy to use software you can:

* Accelerate server provisioning by building a virtual machine once and deploying it multiple times
* Easily evaluate software in ready-to-run virtual machines without installation and configuration
* Simplify IT testing of patches, new applications and operating systems by allowing systems administrators to test in a secure virtual machine environment and be able to roll back to a clean state by using the snapshot feature
* Re-host legacy operating systems such as Windows 2000, Windows NT Server 4.0 and Windows 2003 in a virtual machine running on new hardware and operating system
* Leverage pre-built, ready-to-run virtual appliances that include virtual hardware, operating system and application environments from the Virtual Appliance Marketplace

want to be compliant with their licenses and host servers in a production environment.

I'm not convinced.

Is this still part of their license?

http://www.intelliadmin.com/index.php/2008/07/vmwares-insane-license/

3.9 Audit Rights. You will maintain accurate records as to your use of the Software as authorized by this Agreement, for at least two (2) years from the last day on which support and subscription services (“Services”) expired for the applicable Software. VMware, or persons designated by VMware, will, at any time during the period when you are obliged to maintain such records, be entitled to inspect such records and your computing devices, in order to verify that the Software is used by you in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and that you have paid the applicable license fees and Services fees for the Software; provided that VMware may conduct no more than one (1) audit in any twelve (12) month period. You shall promptly pay to VMware any underpayments revealed by any such audit. Any such audit will be performed at VMware’s expense during normal business hours, provided that you shall promptly reimburse VMware for the cost of such audit and any applicable fees if such audit reveals an underpayment by you of more than five percent (5%) of the amounts payable by you to VMware for the period audited.

There are no licensing compliance problems with running VMware server in a production environment. You can even buy a service contract from them (although this is not required, it is advisable for production systems). I'm not out to convince you. Just to let you know that your understanding of VMware is wrong.

However, much like with VMWare, if you want all the appropriate remote management software, etc. you pay for it.

Calling VMWare "free" is a stretch. Hyper-V Server is also "free". Of course, if you want to really USE it, it will cost you.

VMware Server can be run on Windows or Unix/Linux host OSes. I have VMware servers deployed (on free linux OSes), and I have HyperV deployed (site license for the pricey windows stuff helps). I really USE both. The VMware stuff I use for free, as intended.

BTW - VMware ESXi (their pure hypervisor, requiring no host OS) is also completely free.

It does not require any underlying OS.

Did you read the section of the license agreement for VMWare I posted above?

with this tool. Advanced features like SRM (Disaster Recovery), integration with multiple storage protocols and vendors, and generally simple operation make VMware a superior product.

When deployed into an enterprise with most common features it is very expensive. Generally more than the servers that it runs on.

Because, you are absolutely correct, when deployed with all the common features it costs a bundle.

The applications we require MUST run in a Windows environment (we do not have the budget to convert all of our SQL apps to an Oracle environment (actually most of our apps aren't available in an Oracle version, the ones that are would cost us at least $100k to upgrade).

So, what we do is run the SQL server on a physical device which is backed up real time to a Sonicwall CDP (Continuous Data Protection, backs up every time a file is altered basically, keeps up to 15 versions in history). The virtual machines don't store any data, just program files, report forms, etc. so are backed up as part of a nightly backup routine and can be restored, for all intents and purposes" from any nightly backup at hand.

If we had an unlimited budget, we might have looked closer at VMWare, but it made no sense in our environment at this time (especially since our budget for the next year to two is tied up in doing construction on a new building that will consolidate the 4 buildings we currently occupy into one location).

VMware did it first, and did it better. But that gap closed quickly and with MS's licensing for Hyper-V the decision is really a no-brainer now. We are not expanding our VMware environment, but we're adding another half-dozen Hyper-V servers.

are not free. thousands per server, thousands in yearly maint.

M$ is a fucking yawn.

that made integration into an already existing environment that was dependent on already existing applications due to regulatory constraints seamless and practically instantaneous, streamlining the job of network administrators in the process?

No?

Oh well.

and it worked out of the chute.

And, as a value-add- 64 bit Linux, which I played with extensively in 2000.....at IBM.

Too bad the suckers at M$ keep spinning themselves as anything other than also-rans.


Win7:

A 64 bit hack of a 32 bit patch of a 16 bit fix for 8 bit operating system stolen by a two bit company who cannot tolerate one bit of real competition.

I wonder how many business-hours have been wasted patching, rebooting and recreating lost production over that piece of shit of an operation.

In 2000, M$ was using UNIX to master all of their retail products.

since it wouldn't accommodate the applications they required in their daily operations.

Thanks.

Oracle, thousands of financial tools, thousands of individual instances of operating systems humming along on one box... making the shit from M$ appropriate for none, but used widely by wanna be sysadmins and IT department heads everywhere.

So their secretaries could do database searches.

In M$Acess

:rofl:

say . . . a SQL based Quality Management System database (which is completely validated and controlled, which I'm sure you don't have any real knowledge of if you haven't worked directly in the industry) benefit from such an environment . . . oh wait, they wouldn't.

Sorry, but you're trying to speak to things you have no knowledge of.

When it's capable of doing what is actually NEEDED instead of things that are just "wow that's neat", let me know.

of you'd be familiar with the IBM iron and their multiple instance OS capabilities.

AIX, Linux....real computing platforms.

Unfortunate that you keep going small in this regard.

I'm talking about large computers doing large jobs for the Fedgov and Wall Street.....Nasa......

Renderfarms for Hollywood.

Something desktop operating systems like M$ whatever and their 'programs' cannot achieve in any regard.

Do you think M$ is still using UNIX to master their retail product DVD's???

I wonder why.

have no use for just like I said.

Thanks for playing.

So tell me, how exactly does that play into a small company with fewer than 200 employees? It doesn't.

It's like comparing a huge commercial orchard to a small family farm with a couple of apple trees out back. What works for the rare giant farm is useless and meaningless to the infinitely larger number of people that operate in smaller environments.

Everything I have listed scales down to the mom pop apple farm that has a website on Godaddy - and all the way up to the GSA or Ford or the NSA.

Virtual instances of OS's running everything from Oracle databases to SAP human resource software suites to fishcart (a perl/php based shopping cart system for mom and pops..)

Scalability is the REASON people use the stuff I mentioned. Pay for what you need and nothing else.

Ya don't know what you are talking (or increasingly, even arguing) about.

I cannot help it if your view of the computing landscape is locked into the M$ version of reality.

If more people had demanded better, malware would never have become a word.


Best of luck with all your computing, though. Do they still have that little talking paper clip to tell you what to do??

How is continuing to say that what you suggest is useless to most companies equate to "changing directions"?

Microsoft (or your illogical assumption that I somehow prefer to be using its products) is not the point.

When you work in the companies I do with long-existing validated applications, it is merely more financially feasible to stick with it.

Have you ever validated an application to be compliant with FDA regulations? Are you aware of the work hours and resources it takes to re-qualify a system if it's moved to a different OS (or, for that matter, a different server)? Do you have any concept of the costs associated with that? No? I thought not.

Your understanding of actual real-world use is laughable.

The mere fact that you try to somehow mention annoying features of Office when we're discussing network infrastructure and OS'es says quite a bit about how much you actually understand.

What you suggest is simply unworkable for the majority of companies (which is why the majority of companies don't do what you suggest . . . funny how that works eh?).

standard mentioned.

What FDA reg? Name it, I wanna go read it for myself.


I think your comp sci teacher should call you back into class now.

Anything at all?

Please let me know once you've familiarized yourself with the concepts behind 21 CFR Part 11. Then, once you have an understanding of how to be completely compliant with 21 CFR Part 11, plunge yourself into an existing company with already validated systems.

Then, once you've operated in an FDA regulated laboratory environment with Quality Management Systems (Pilgrim SmartSolve) , Laboratory Information Systems (StarLIMS) , ERP's (currently an in-house proprietary system that is fully validated), lab equipment Calibration Management Software (Blue Mountain CalMan) and accounting systems that are already validated and existing in SQL environments.

Then, once you've had about a decade to understand all that, try to understand what a requalification and revalidation of said systems entails.

Little hint: If you had the slightest clue what I was discussing regarding validation and qualification, you would have stopped responding a long time ago because you would know I'm right.

Tell you what, when you've worked in regulated environments that require validation and qualification of systems for over a decade, then come talk to me. When you have an understanding of what is required to move, change or even upgrade an existing validated system, come talk to me.

Until then, you're just talking shit with no basis in real-world applications.

Here's a little hint:

To fully migrate (for instance) the CalMan product, fully validate it and bring it completely into compliance would cost a MINIMUM of $250,000, not including work hours required for re-training of users and time required for running duplicate systems for validation testing in some instances.

To migrate something like the QMS system including validating the transfer of data from the existing system (because you can't just copy a file and call it good, you have to actually prove through documented substantiation that all data carried over accurately) would cost a minimum of $500,000.

You make me laugh with your presumed knowledge of an industry you've obviously never been involved with.

that it would integrate into a running system, not require migration....



Please go get your arguments squared up. Your hubris is charming, yet tiresome, with a slight aroma of someone desperate to score some vague point, or something, somewhere....

So tell me, have you actually read 21 CFR Part 11 yet?

No?

I'll wait.

I did say that it would integrate (you can migrate a virtual machine from one physical server to another without the need for revalidation, as the virtual machine has already been validated). Also, the platform the systems already run on has been validated.

The expense associated with validating on a new platform is NOT something that is feasible.

Of course, with your non-existent understanding of the industry, you wouldn't know that.

1. I don't care what you said.

2. I stopped answering you in earnest immediately after you stopped talking about virtual machines, and started selling M$ garbage.

3. If you knew what you are talking about I'd discuss anything you desire, but you're talking in circles punctuated by nebulous verbosity and psuedo-standards, prolly developed for and by M$.

4. Go sell M$ someplace else.

5. You are correct, I have no experience at all in the industry and I have the pay stubs and the recommendations from IBM to prove it.

6. You are very keen to parrot "revalidation" and personal attacks, and short on the real world answers. Good luck with that.

7. What possible OS could you be talking about, or is that a secret, too?

I personally loved "Bob", my favorite M$ character. Bob was a great substitute for fixing a heavily advertised database that wouldn't take a shit after 250 entries, couldn't conform to the SQL standards, and an OS that was little more than a solitare platform with network software bolted on.

Say what you will about OSX - at least it's UNIX based, which M$ should have done with SCO - they should have bolted some shit front end that could have run 'BoB' and "Clippy" and hid the fact that they finally got a clue and decided to run a real operating system instead of that hacked peice o' shit they call Windowz, (the greatest petri dish in the known universe...).

Go ahead, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about again and then go revalidate yourself.

Thanks for proving it yet again.

When you can show me how the environment you discuss is applicable to the situations I discussed, come back and talk to me.

Until then, all you're doing is talking shit.

As I said, what you discuss is a product that is not in anyway practical for real world applications for most businesses. You know that, you're just trying to pretend that since you don't have any comprehension of what I'm actually discussing you can try to change the subject to accusing me of promoting Microsoft (which I've never actually done, what I've done is pointed out that moving from Microsoft is not feasible for most companies).

I notice that once again, despite the fact that YOU are the one that asked which FDA regulations I was referring to,you have no willingness to actually approach the discussion with any honesty. What you've proven is that you aren't trying to discuss the real world as it applies to most businesses, but that your goal is to bash Microsoft.

See, what happened was this: You said "But IBM WHAAAAAAAA". I said "IBM's solution has no applicability to most businesses with already established systems, especially regulated systems. You said "You're just selling Microsoft WHAAAAAAA". I pointed you to regulations discussing exactly what I was talking about. You went all whiney (as expected) and tried to ignore the entire prior conversation.

What I gather from this is that (A) You have NOT worked in a regulated environment and have no concept of what it entails. (B) You have worked in large scale server environments which have no applicability to the majority of businesses). (C) You have a hate on for Microsoft to the point where your only point of reference is comical icons that were dropped more than a decade ago. (D) You have yet to explain (despite my listing of specific products) how any of them could be successfully implemented using the architecture you discuss.

Let me see if I can break it down in simple terms that someone like you can understand.

Regulated industries (Food, Drug, Financial, etc.) have very specific guidelines they must follow. These guidelines include the need for validation of all software systems used in production and development.

For decades, the majority of companies involved in those industries have used Windows based systems. So, as a consequence,the software they require has been developed and certified to operate only in Windows based environments.

As these systems came on line and were validated, most companies were forced, by compliance regulations and financial constraints, to continue using the software they already had.

The vast majority of them had no use for an IBM system with virtual server capabilities because it had no applicability whatsoever to the environments the operated in and no practical use.

As technology grew, these companies began discovering products like VMWare which could help them save on hardware costs by consolidating their already existing applications into compatible virtual environments, in many cases, without the need to completely requalify their systems.

As smaller companies with limited resources tried to do the same thing, they were very happy when they realized that the server OS they were already locked into (Windows Server) offered virtualization capabilities in it's base operating system.

Now, since these companies were trying to save money and could not possibly migrate their systems in any feasible way to your beloved IBM behemoth, they realized that the best practical solution was to use the Hyper-V solution, as it fit their business requirements and financial constraints extremely well.

Then people that live merely to hate Microsoft instead of to actually provide functional solutions to their clients began (as usual) engaging in hyperbolic and condescending discussions where they tried to paint anyone who points out the reality of day to day business as "selling" Microsoft products.

You're welcome to joint the real world now where most companies have no use for your beloved IBM virtualization (explaining why the majority of companies don't use it).

YOU SELL WINDOWS!!!!!

YOU SELL WINDOWS!!!!!

BWAYA A YAUYAYAYAHAHAH AHA AHA HAHAH AHAH AHA AH AH


:rofl: :bounce: :rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce:
:rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce:
:rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce:
:rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce::rofl: :bounce:

Whatever.

I notice you still haven't provided a single actual point to counter anything I've said.

You have proven that you don't know anything about the world many of us actually work in though.

Your childlike behavior is duly noted.

who gives a shit what you think?

and switched to Apple?

Back then, the Apple strategy was to get college kids hooked on Macs, and they would force their employers to switch.

Didn't work then. Won't work now.

Between 1990 and 2000, MSFT crushed Apple. Apple's resurgence is hardly guaranteed to last anymore than Dell's dominance of the home PC market was ten years ago.

is business friendly across vast networks with gazillions of applications and hardware. And don't try to tell me it is corporate friendly, because if it was the corporations using Microsoft would switch overnight.

I wouldn't say corporations would switch overnight though, the cost associated with doing that isn't something any company would happily dive into.

A perfect example was how MS was selling Win7 Home Premium upgrade 3packs for $150 when it first came out. Does anyone think Dell or HP or ANY PC vendor pays more than $25 for a Windows license? Apple won't even consider that ballpark.

also the last upgrade was 29.99 to end users.

So that is not quite a good argument.

And some companies have migrated. Most have not because of the costs involved.

And if people don't know what I'm reffering to then they probably shouldn't try to speak to "what" the future of Microsoft is :)

Microsoft is ENDING!
Apple apps are in LOCK DOWN!
HP has an iPad KILLER!
Sony has an XBox KILLER!
Bing is a Google KILLER!
Android is an iPhone KILLER!
Adobe's Flash GASPING FOR BREATH!
Google Tablet will DIE ON THE VINE!

Such drama!:popcorn:

Mission Accomplished.

"Jobs Is Losing His Mind
I wouldn't be suprised to hear about a IJonestown development soon. "

:rofl:

Jobs is losing his mind.

This is his livelihood. His monetary life, his business accumen and his reputation are involved in this story. What does Yavin4 get out of it?

Geez Louise. I apologize for talking about your hero.

Hat's off to you! You have a much bigger internet cock than I do.:applause:

You have a nice day now, okay.

Apple is certainly a major player with 15% of the overall market, but Symbian and Blackberry still control the smartphone field by large margins. While the iPhone and the Android, with their application-oriented operating systems, may be taking part of the market, the largest percentage of users are apparently still favoring and purchasing older style communication-oriented smartphones. This has led to quite a bit of debate in the industry as to whether the Applesque phones (including the Android and upcoming Phone 7) are merely the latest technology fad, or whether they represent a permanent division in the smartphone market.

As for MS, I personally wouldn't be so quick to write them off. They have shown themselves to be formidable and modern players in the home entertainment market, and their upcoming mobile OS (Phone 7) was created by the group that designed the XBox. It's a new OS from the ground up, and many of the reviewers who have seen it already (including some who were certainly not pro-Microsoft) were very impressed by it.

This writer, and many modern pundits, are forgetting something important about MS. Something that has killed many would-be deposers in the past. Microsoft has never been an innovator. They have never been the leader of the technology pack, and have never been on the cutting edge. This notion that they have lost their innovation is silly, because they never had it in the first place!

Microsoft's model has always been the same. Let the other guys develop a new paradigm. Let the other guys market and sell their product to see if the customers are interested. When the concept and market prove themselves, Microsoft steps in with a new product that is only incrementally different than that offered by the original innovator, throws a couple billion dollars into a worldwide marketing account, and takes over. Phone 7 appears to be Microsoft's opening shot at doing just that in the smartphone market.

The question, today, is whether modern buyers will fall for it. We can hope not, but history has shown that hope is a poor defense against Microsoft's marketing department and underhanded tactics. They've pulled it off every time they've done it before.

for its mobile units (ZUNE is one example). the iPhone owns the Japanese market.

The XboX might be feeling the pressure if the i devices become the gaming platform of choice.

Nothing butt ugly about it. I'm a happy Android user and wouldn't buy one myself, but Phone 7 is sleek, easy on the eyes, and very "modern" looking. It helps that they finally ditched the idea that the phone should look like the computer.

Plus, Phone 7 has MEAP. MEAP, for the uninitiated, allows businesses to build applications that connect their backend networks to MS mobile devices. MEAP is still light years beyond anything that Google or Apple offer, and is much loved by the corporate-type IT folks (who still drive the majority of technology purchase dollars in the U.S.) MS apparently intends to expand MEAP with 7 to allow the development of full blown applications for the phone, rather than the smaller applet-type apps that exist for the iPhone and Android. If major software developers embrace the idea, and they can convince corporations to expand their reliance on the technology, it could be a market game changer.

This is the "incremental expansion" I discussed in my first post. As an example, you can build a HIPAA compliant mobile medical services application for Phone 7 using MEAP. That sort of thing isn't even an option with the iPhone or Android.

I'm no MS fanboy (I'm typing this message on my CentOS desktop atm, in fact), but Microsoft knows how to play the game, and it's silly to assume that Apple is going to render them obsolete.

companies that have had a big head start on mobile devices.

I looked at the 7 and found it to have an ugly interface. It might work well, but it wasn't pleasing to the eye, and that is important.

of the desktop PC and network server environments.

desktop. The iPod Touch was a proof of concept for the iPad. It isn't just the configuration that is important, it is how you interact with the device.

The iPad and similar devices won't make much of a change for the cubicle monkey, but for others it can be a big change. We see people doing POS on the iPhone. We see snipers using the iPhone in their duties. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481004,00.html

It's not so much the device as it is what people will make of it.

Mobile computing is still in its infancy. We only see the beginning of its uses.

It's a toy.

are phones toys?

If it were just a phone, it wouldn't be something that you fanboys are so enamored with.

There were phones that worked as phones for decades before the iPhone. What makes the iPhone a toy is all the toys that are now part of the phone, you know things like . . . games.

The iPhone is a toy. If someone merely wants a phone, they can get one for far less money.

it is far from a toy.

doesn't have the same restrictions on applications and the user as the iPhone.

Are you suggesting that proprietary encryption implementations can't meet HIPPA standards? Or that the Android can't make SSL connections?

If you think that HIPAA compliance simply means encrypting a connection, then you've never written an enterprise class HIPAA compliant application. Here's a hint: You can't write a HIPAA compliant web application that works in a normal browser, because you do not know what plugins or extensions the remote browser might be using, or their level of access to screen data, you can never assume that the remote hosts are secure. Properly written HIPAA compliant applications should always use custom interfaces, or depend on customized browsers, to prevent tampering and third party data sniffing. I'm fully aware that there are some consulting companies pushing medical apps as "HIPAA compliant" that are essentially just plain old web apps running over SSL, but they'll eventually be sued into oblivion for it (as they should be).

The iPhone and Android can transfer the data just fine, but they don't have fully developed API's that will allow the data to be displayed in a manner that will be secure from sniffing by other apps and browser extensions on those devices. BlackBerry does it, and the current Windows Mobile platform does it to a certain degree, but Mobile 7 will go further than any of them.

Of course, there's another aspect to it as well. To develop and deploy custom applications for an iPhone, a corporation would need to spend hundreds of dollars a year to remain members of the Apple Enterprise Developer program. Even worse, Apple requires you to jump through all sorts of hoops to join the program, and won't permit you to join if you have less than 500 employees (even if you're a consulting company serving fortune 500 companies every day, you can't get on board if you have less than 500 people on staff). Microsoft and Blackberry make their application platforms and API's available to all developers at no charge. Because nearly all major corporations now rely on consultants or outsourced IT services to some extent, this gives MS and RIM a HUGE leg up in that market.

Apple is interested in building consumer-centric devices, and hasn't invested the time or resources needed to build a truly enterprise-friendly platform.

to be HIPPA compliant by only using SSL on the server on which the forms reside?

No need to read anything else in this thread - thanks for saving me the time.

Pay attention to the vertical axis - the measurement is *rate of change.*

Microsoft had similar numbers the decade prior, then leveled off and has been holding steady. Though you might not guess it from the chart, Microsoft is still the larger corporation, with double the revenue and triple the employees. Microsoft also has a much better P/E ratio and pays dividends. Certainly it is not possible for Apple to grow at this rate indefinitely. At some point they will also level off and hold steady.

Once ubiquitous it is now just a memory.

...that can run on any computer, they will start to compete with MS. Until then they will hold a niche market.

FY 2009 revenue: 95.8B gross profit: 43.8B.
http://www.ibm.com/investor/financials/quarterly-snapshot.wss

What exactly about IBM would Microsoft not like to be compared to?

IBM is a highly resilient highly profitable company that takes a long term strategic approach to business, is unafraid to re-invent itself, to reshape itself, to innovate where innovation makes sense, to discard even highly profitable business units that no longer match their long term goals (e.g. lenovo) and to continue to thrive over decades.

according to Wiki anyway who says they were incorporated in 1911.

MS will survive, but not as a game changer or rule maker.

psst - they don't make ANY personal computers anymore. Not one.

OS/2 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2, 2,0 & 3.0 finally got them out of the PC Operating System Wars. Since then they have outsourced most mainframe Operating System and utilities development.

yeah...dumb old IBM...

:eyes:

It was a piece of crap, but it was hardly a company killer. IBM continues to be profitable.

They survived and are doing just fine.

or at least that was true in the recent past. They make LOTS of stuff not seen by the average consumer.

The iSeries (as400) is everywhere and makes them shit tons of money.

You must be another one who thinks IBM's core business was selling pcs. That was more or less a sideline.

I then moved to an XT , then one of the early Macs.

I wasn't surprised when they got out of PC's.

Marketing sheep buzzword.

It tells you that rampant unfounded speculation follows.

until they decided to join AOL as the Sopranos of the Internet.

:headbang:
rocktivity

This is like saying Garmin is better than Microsoft....um, they focus on different things.

I have yet to find one thing that Apple actually does better than Microsoft for me an 90% of the population.

Stock price is not necessarily an indication of a successful business.

Products have a life-cycle; Most of Apple's products are definitely in the growth phase, and most of Microsoft's products are in the maintenance phase - some of their products are defintely in the decline phase.

Will Microsoft become another DEC? Or live on to be like an IBM? Only time will tell.

"Microsoft posts 60 percent jump in quarterly profit."
January 28, 2010

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R71A20100129




"Microsoft posts 35 percent jump in quarterly profit."
April 22, 2010

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63L5IY20100422



Let me know when Microsoft posts a loss in quarterly profit, especially in operating system sales. Then we can start talking about the end of Microsoft.

Bill Gates has missed more than a few bets along the way. He didn't see the internet coming, for one. Steve Jobs was all over it.

Just the same, Microsoft has spent a lot of time looking after servers and institutional clients that have been their bread and butter.

If they ever get Windows "right", they could put in on the chip and take care of a lot of security issues.

and as soon as Reynolds & Reynolds makes their applications here at work Win 7 friendly, we'll switch here too from XP.

I went to the story and still could not find out.

I see years, I see percentages. What do the percentages represent?

Apple fanboy postings related to their products.

It's easy to get growth when you have what, 3% of the market.

It's hard to get growth when you have 90% of the market.

Bullshit graph. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

and I'm not interested in apple products right now.

Not only that, but MS still dominates the office software. If google comes up with an OS then we can revisit this discussion. But right now I'm impressed with the stability of the Windows OS versions XP and later.

they didn't have it to begin with.

Now remind me... when exactly did IBM die?

Oh wait, it has not.

And in some aspects Microsoft is not going anywhere... enterprise environment comes to mind.

What you are seeing though is a split. MAC will keep the media delivery and all that, while enterprise will remain in the hands of Microsoft for years to come.

Oh and cloud computing, in the industrial setting... pass whatever you are smoking. You will never meet a worst case of the paranoia than in corporate settings.

Too many people refuse to see the obvious virus-less Open Source solutions that work perfectly well and gravitate to the Microsoft "solution", even at their peril.

They can continue to get viruses and get lost in bloatware for all I care.

Get Linux Mint or Ubuntu Server. And breath....

are going away. Lotus Domino is dying, Oracle is overprices, and sharepoint is growing rapidly.

Article is crap.

...you can manage a Windows-based enterprise.

I've done it. That's why I prefer OS X Server and/or a Linux server enterprise if only because once you get it set up correctly, your IT world is so much more secure, easier to manage and in many cases FREE!

That said, OS wars suck.

Running a proper AV solution tends to cut back on client issues. In reality there is a movement to use virtual desktops with non persistent os volumes that boot from a golden image. Easier to manage, storage cost can be a bummer.

Work product is saved to shares or portals. Most people in an office environment dont need a full tilt desktop. I run CAD/CAM so basically use server class hardware (both wintel and mac).

Big change is coming in storage. In the next 10 years NAND will replace spinning disk. Solid state is already in use in supercomputer platforms and high end systems now.

Need stuff coming in the datacenter.

Their web services are powerful, and cheap.

And the cost of entry is very small, so even a single person with a big idea can play with the best of them on there.

http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/

I prefer to develop on a Mac, and run my apps on linux (ubuntu).

ah, nerd heaven =)

:puffpiece:

Apple puffpiece and nothing more.

God i hope it's not the end i have MCSA (microsoft Certified Systems admin) i'll be out of the job if microsoft goes belly up