Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/25/2002 6:46:27 PM EST
For those of you who don't already know, the last two paragraphs are key. [size=4]Microsoft to Shift .Net Effort to Big Companies[/size=4] [size=1]Software: Chairman Bill Gates concedes that the Internet-based system has failed to attract consumers but points to dozens of firms using it. By JOSEPH MENN, TIMES STAFF WRITER[/size=1] REDMOND, Wash. -- Acknowledging that his 2-year-old vision of an Internet-based computing system has yet to catch on with consumers, Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates said the firm is shifting focus toward big companies that use the architecture internally. Gates said the company had been too vague about the strategy to support Web services with a framework called .Net. The .Net term has been used to describe everything from large servers running recent versions of Microsoft's operating system to routine transactions over the Web. "In some respects we haven't made as much progress as we expected," Gates told an annual gathering of industry and financial analysts. "Change has not been as dramatic." Gates gave the massive .Net effort a "C" grade for such basic services as the Passport tool used by consumers to move data about themselves to Web sites and automated alerts for plane schedule changes or new auction bids. On the positive side, Gates and other Microsoft executives gave dozens of examples of big companies using the .Net framework. And they pointed to significant behind-the-scenes progress as technology companies, financial services firms and others come together to pick standards for security and other pieces of technical plumbing. [more]
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 6:47:16 PM EST
It will take two more years before most consumers see Web services capability built into their home computer operating systems, Gates said. Among the added challenges is a reluctance by businesses to use the advanced programming structure because of worries that Microsoft will tilt the system to favor its other products. Some of the services touted by Microsoft work only with Microsoft's server software. A coalition that includes Sun Microsystems Inc., credit card issuers and merchants is working on an open-source version of Passport. "We're going to see the world divide itself into two camps--Microsoft and everyone else," said CS First Boston analyst George Gilbert. Yet analysts and investors said they were impressed with the progress Microsoft has made and its increased willingness to collaborate with others in the industry on specifications. On the consumer front, Microsoft won praise by demonstrating a version of its Windows XP operating system for the living room, which it promised to ship this year. Computers using the forthcoming Windows XP Media Center system will come with television tuners, remote controls and menus steering users to DVDs, digital photos and music files. Consumers will be able to flip through TV channels and select one for live viewing in a movable window while responding to e-mails and browsing the Web. Gates and Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said the .Net initiative will add little to Microsoft sales for years. But they said it's worth the effort because it will make Microsoft's other products more valuable if they have increased ability to interact over the Web. [b]Gates said Microsoft has begun researching how to convert at least parts of such flagship products as Windows and Office into services themselves. One day the entire programs may be available only for rent. "I believe in the long run things will be architected that way," Gates said.[/b] [url]www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-micro25jul25.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dbusiness[/url] All the more reason to stick it up Bill's ass and support Linux.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 7:57:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 7:58:03 PM EST by BenDover]
Like this comes as any surprise. They were initially going to launch the authentication services as part of the XP installation process. They backed off at the last minute before release, but the late betas required internet activation that tracked you. They will offer a lower priced version, but you won't get access to windowsupdate.microsoft.com If you want access to the patch releases, then pay the subscrip. If you just want to wait until the next version release then so be it. Remember, security has been the big issue, but they are working to automatically push down actual security holes. The latest release of Windows Update runs as a service, so they can "control" the essential fixes. Other enhancements will be fee paid. Supposedly, windowsupdate will eventually be set to kill pirated keys if someone hits the site. BFD. The subscription will invariably cost what a new license of Windows costs only spread over time. Bill will ultimately be able to streamline his business infrastructure as more people move to the new architecture. This will enable him to keep costs down while he also attacks the corporate market. Linux is light years away from any of this architecture. Show me how to automate the patches from CVS without too much effort - with version control. Linux will suffer the same fate as UNIX because there are too many development threads. There are users in each flavor segment of the Linux market. Study what happened in the past.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:40:20 PM EST
I have no problem paying subscription fees as long as you actually get something for your money. I just have no interest in renting software, especially if I'm forced to use an ASP to do it. I think we will see a backlash, one more profound than whan we have seen in the past. In fact, I would not be surprised if some form of 32-bit DOS made a comeback. Simpler than Linux, perhaps with less of a feature set than Windows. I remember quite well what happened in the 80's and 90's. I was a contractor for SCO when they were tops in their business, but they got greedy, and Mr. Bill and his cheap OS kicked their ass. Same for the other UNIX vendors. Mr. Bill beat them all. He had business and of course, he won as the result of it. However, .NET is not catching on. Perhaps business is finally coming to their senses. In any case, I don't think many corporations will be interested in renting software if it's going to cost them more than what buying did in the past. The OS is not so much the issue as products such as MS Office, which are quite expensive. I know Open Source has its drawbacks, of course, yet as a programmer I am well aware that the quality can be superior. Look at MS. Their XML parser is such a POS people are switching to Apache Xerces in droves. Many seem to be willing to deal with open source if that's what it takes to get something that works. In any case, if Mr. Bill continues to alienate business with expensive software full of security holes, he could be in for a big surprise.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 3:00:20 PM EST
"I would not be surprised if some form of 32-bit DOS made a comeback." i'm praying that day comes soon! long live dos!
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 3:09:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:27:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: Now would be a great time for Apple to step up to the plate, and offer OS X on the x86 platform. It's a slick OS, and developers WILL (and are) coming out with more and more applications for OS X. -Gloftoe
View Quote
You mean the same Apple that just started leasing formerly free software and charging for updates to OSX? [}:D] Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:32:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 12:21:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: Now would be a great time for Apple to step up to the plate, and offer OS X on the x86 platform.
View Quote
That will NEVER happen. For starters that will throw compatibility out the window. Although, now would be a great time for PC users to start buying Macs, and avoid the dark side.
It's a slick OS, and developers WILL (and are) coming out with more and more applications for OS X.
View Quote
True, which is why I am running it. Everybody else should too.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 5:05:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By mattja: I think we will see a backlash, one more profound than whan we have seen in the past.
View Quote
There may be some backlash, but there's one little point that will never be easy to overcome. He OWNS the desktop market. Millions of non-tech users who are comfortable with Windows will not readily adapt to a new envionment. Human factor is a tough hurdle for any new technology to overcome.
In fact, I would not be surprised if some form of 32-bit DOS made a comeback. Simpler than Linux, perhaps with less of a feature set than Windows.
View Quote
I think you will likely see a Windows XPLite for under $100. In fact, over time you may see a very inexpensive OS client install and buy-as-you go features.
Same for the other UNIX vendors. Mr. Bill beat them all. He had business and of course, he won as the result of it.
View Quote
He won because th UNIX market was fragmented with multiple vendors trying to compete within their own product flavor vertical. It was easier to pick off the low hanging fruit by sniping clients from each of the UNIX flavor competitors. By the time you pool them all together, he's the big daddy.
However, .NET is not catching on. Perhaps business is finally coming to their senses.
View Quote
Au contrare. There are tons of projects emerging from the architecture phase. .NET is the killer app that will finally permit the relatively inexpensive interface from mainframe to web. It's huge. I have been attending all the seminars and boot camps. They are full houses everywhere. Architecture positions are still hot and if you show .NET on the paper, you will have a good shot at being picked up.
In any case, I don't think many corporations will be interested in renting software if it's going to cost them more than what buying did in the past.
View Quote
Beg to differ. Corps are looking to streamline their IT shops. When you look at the TCO for some things, it ends up being cheaper overall to rent (even at a higher cumulative purchase price) because owning may require more internal support resources.
I know Open Source has its drawbacks, of course, yet as a programmer I am well aware that the quality can be superior.
View Quote
What good is superior code when you are forced to rely upon the good graces of the user community for sometimes very complex support issues. Example, we had a project where we needed some heavy integration support for Tomcat. Even the Jakarta project members were not able to provide us with adequate documentation and support, so we scrapped the platform.
In any case, if Mr. Bill continues to alienate business with expensive software full of security holes, he could be in for a big surprise.
View Quote
I think you will find security to be one of the biggest mantras in MS right now. Bill is no dumbass and he is well aware of the security issue. However, the majority of security issues on any platform are end-user related. .NET was not intended to be a platform for the masses. It's an enterprise app framework. The only aspect to .NET that will pertain to the home and common user will be the fact that .NET facilitates the relative easy development of web services which will enable ALL software vendors to deploy subscription-style products. It won't just be Windows or Office.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 5:41:04 AM EST
Upgrading to .Net is supposed to be transparent to the users. It's main selling point is it's portability across all different platform types. In reality, the people who have the most to fear, would be Citrix. .Net is basically a standard way for client to connect to any type of resource by using a web browser. It incorporate the .XML structure so that clients in reality are acting as "thin clients" and do not need to perform any processing on their own machines. Basically it functions exactly as Citrix Nfuse, where you connect to a portal web page that lists all your applications and tools. Once you choose a program, all processes are launched on a seperate server, and all you see is the output on your screen. That is how they can make the Office suite, and all others subscription based. You want to use Word, then you have to connect to Microsoft's web page. Same for Excel and all other Microsoft backoffice apps. If you haven't paid your subscription, then your aren't "authorized" to use the application. This would be a big cash cow for Microsoft, as it severly hurts the piracy industry. Because all applications are accessed via a web page to a remote server, there is nothing to install on the local PC. No more "burned" copies of Office or any other suite, becuause these applications are no longer going to be produced. In the same regard, Microsoft has now announced the "lifetime" of an operation system is no more than five years. They expect to force people to continuously upgrade every few years to the latest Microsoft OS, and this is just crap. Microsoft overestimated the demand for this product. I don't want to have to connect over the internet for every little app I use. The internet is insecure enough, and the last thing I want is my personal information sent over a public network (regarless of SSL or any other type of encrytpion). If Microsoft is really going to push this, then it would be a great time for other compainies to start developing their own software to replace that which Microsoft wants to incorporate as subscription only.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 7:19:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 2:40:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: Couple of links for you. Apparently, Herr Jobs is considering it: [url]http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1393[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1214469[/url]
Some analysts have also urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp. INTC.O from those made by Motorola Inc. MOT.N and International Business Machines Corp. IBM.N to cut costs. Asked about that possibility, Jobs said that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year. "Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.
View Quote
Granted, they'd probably have to be Apple branded x86 machines to ensure compatibility, and because we know Apple likes to control everything pertaining to their OS's. But it's apparently a viable option that Jobs is considering. -Gloftoe
View Quote
That quote has been held up as the fact that Jobs is considering x86. But the whole quote is more illustrative: Steve Jobs: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. " He basically said that he likes the current direction that the PPC is heading, but we like to have options. This is basically a warning shot across the bow of Motorola. He said they will stick with Mot, but if they can't get their act together, they will go somewhere else. He never mention x86, only options. There is IBM's POWER4, and others. I wouldn't be surprise if Apple had a prototype x86 machine with X running on it, but I doubt it is in any way close to being a releasable machine. There are other problems changing to x86: - Software compatibility- changing to x86 would require Apple writing an emulator for old software, and developers porting their applications to yet another system, after just doing it for 9 to X. - Losing Altivec: OSX is heavily dependent on Altivec to accelerate GUI functions. x86 has nothing comparable. Those are just two of the many problem changing to x86. I highly doubt they will do that, unless they will be forced by Mot's failure to improve the G4.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 3:43:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 5:35:45 PM EST
You'd be shocked by how easy it would be for Apple to move OSX to x86. I used to program on NeXT, the precursor to OSX. They had the OS running on Moto 68K, Intel, and HP, plus some versions on Sun. If you wanted to compile your app to another architecture you just clicked a checkbox in the compiler. All the applications had a single MachO fat binary with different code sections for the respective architectures. I'd be shocked if they didn't have a version running on Intel in their labs right now, and if they didn't compile to Intel to check for any obvious incompatabilities. Like Jobs said, they're in the middle of a transition right now, from OS9 to a modern OS. OSX is rapidly shaping up and the user base is moving over. Once that happens they'll have a lot of options for their hardware base.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 6:20:50 PM EST
If any of you really care, the reason I suspect there is not x86 version of OS X is not an OS or hardware issue, but more of a matter of every 3rd party app maker having to update every single application to run on it for it to accommodate x86. Apple has its hands full trying to secure all its regular platform apps for X and its future. Comin' at you live from Max OS X 10.1.5
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 9:47:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By BenDover:
Originally Posted By mattja: I think we will see a backlash, one more profound than whan we have seen in the past.
View Quote
There may be some backlash, but there's one little point that will never be easy to overcome. He OWNS the desktop market. Millions of non-tech users who are comfortable with Windows will not readily adapt to a new envionment. Human factor is a tough hurdle for any new technology to overcome.
View Quote
I think the Chinese are poised to make millions selling bootleg copies of Windows 95. he he Like you said, non-tech users may decide not to adopt, the new OS that is, and stick with Windows 2000 or XP for as log as they can. This could put a kind in Bill's plans.
In fact, I would not be surprised if some form of 32-bit DOS made a comeback. Simpler than Linux, perhaps with less of a feature set than Windows.
View Quote
I think you will likely see a Windows XPLite for under $100. In fact, over time you may see a very inexpensive OS client install and buy-as-you go features.
View Quote
That would make sense, but I think the key issue is applications such as Office that cost a small fortune.
Same for the other UNIX vendors. Mr. Bill beat them all. He had business and of course, he won as the result of it.
View Quote
He won because th UNIX market was fragmented with multiple vendors trying to compete within their own product flavor vertical. It was easier to pick off the low hanging fruit by sniping clients from each of the UNIX flavor competitors. By the time you pool them all together, he's the big daddy.
View Quote
At that time all Mr. Bill had was DOS 6.0 and Windows 3.0, and then later Windows 3.1. X-Windows over UNIX was far too complicated for most people to deal with, so of course, those low-end businesses stuck with Microsoft. I don't remember him sniping clients, at least not power users, because he had nothing stable to offer as a replacement. He had early versions of NT, but it was not considered stable enough to replace SCO UNIX, AIX, or any of the truly "professional" OSs. NT 4 came much later if you recall.
However, .NET is not catching on. Perhaps business is finally coming to their senses.
View Quote
Au contrare. There are tons of projects emerging from the architecture phase. .NET is the killer app that will finally permit the relatively inexpensive interface from mainframe to web. It's huge. I have been attending all the seminars and boot camps. They are full houses everywhere. Architecture positions are still hot and if you show .NET on the paper, you will have a good shot at being picked up.
View Quote
Time will tell. You realize MS is a hype factory, right? One thing he has on his side is the CLR, while J2EE users are limited to Java. That was a good idea on Microsoft's part. Anyway, I've been in this business long enough not to be swayed by corporate hype and colorful brochures.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 9:49:23 PM EST
In any case, I don't think many corporations will be interested in renting software if it's going to cost them more than what buying did in the past.
View Quote
Beg to differ. Corps are looking to streamline their IT shops. When you look at the TCO for some things, it ends up being cheaper overall to rent (even at a higher cumulative purchase price) because owning may require more internal support resources.
View Quote
I cannot disagree with you more. The vast majority of software companies make much more profit through leasing software than selling it. Leases ensure continued case flow, while sales may or may not, depending on what type of maintenance agreement is included. As far as support services, have you ever called Microsoft for support? It's teadious and expensive. If you own a shop of any size at all it's cheaper in the long run to hire your own IT support.
I know Open Source has its drawbacks, of course, yet as a programmer I am well aware that the quality can be superior.
View Quote
What good is superior code when you are forced to rely upon the good graces of the user community for sometimes very complex support issues. Example, we had a project where we needed some heavy integration support for Tomcat. Even the Jakarta project members were not able to provide us with adequate documentation and support, so we scrapped the platform.
View Quote
It would not make good business sense to rely on Open Source for less commonly supported software and tools. I have found Open Source to be great for OSs like Linux, and certain tools like the Xerces XML parser and DOM mentioned earlier. I've found the support to be quite good for these products. You can find support through mailing lists, new groups, contractors, VARs, you name it. Documentation is sometimes a weak spot, but sometimes it's better to let the code speak for itself.
In any case, if Mr. Bill continues to alienate business with expensive software full of security holes, he could be in for a big surprise.
View Quote
I think you will find security to be one of the biggest mantras in MS right now. Bill is no dumbass and he is well aware of the security issue. However, the majority of security issues on any platform are end-user related.
View Quote
You're kidding, right?
.NET was not intended to be a platform for the masses. It's an enterprise app framework. The only aspect to .NET that will pertain to the home and common user will be the fact that .NET facilitates the relative easy development of web services which will enable ALL software vendors to deploy subscription-style products. It won't just be Windows or Office.
View Quote
That's basically the J2EE model. Actually, come to think of it, this model was first introduced back around 1996, with Java being the language to make it happen. It never caught on for the obvious reason that people do not want to have to be connected to the web to run their applications. The ASP model, software rental model, etc., has never really caught on. Perhaps Bill can force it on people with his .NET.
Link Posted: 7/28/2002 10:00:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: Microsoft overestimated the demand for this product. I don't want to have to connect over the internet for every little app I use. The internet is insecure enough, and the last thing I want is my personal information sent over a public network (regarless of SSL or any other type of encrytpion). If Microsoft is really going to push this, then it would be a great time for other compainies to start developing their own software to replace that which Microsoft wants to incorporate as subscription only.
View Quote
Sun's StarOffice is on the way to having 100% file compatibility with Microsoft's Office Suite. It's only a matter of time. The main issue I see are Web Services and ASP. This model has been proposed before, and each time large corporate users rejected it. They do not want their data stored on someone else's server. They do not want their critical applications such as order entry, GL, AP, and shipping to rely on the Internet. And most of all, they do not want to be milked for every last cent they have. If this is the model Bill is suggesting, he'll have to ram it down their throats to make them switch.
Top Top