or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anonymouse

  No, it's because IT departments are unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy, after they shifted from the,  "No one ever got fired for buying IBM," philosophy.   My point is that, TIMTOWTDI. You don't have to copy the exact series of steps to reach the same end. Thus, you don't necessarily need to replicate, "every single piece of functionality," to accomplish the same purpose. And, as in the case...
  Read my original response. In no way did I restrict my comments to "specific or limited tasks".
  You aren't asking a meaningful question. What you are asking is the equivalent of, "Can HTML5 do everything that Flash can do?" It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality. As long as you can accomplish the end task with them, even if that means doing things a bit differently, then one can replace the other, just as HTML5 is replacing Flash.
That just confirms the point that they have largely become irrelevant, like IBM before them. All you can point to are legacy technologies, absolutely nothing new or innovative out of Redmond in years and years now. (Nothing successful at least.) No one is following Microsoft's lead any more, and how could they when they're so far back from the leading edge that they can't even see it.
  That might be true if there were similarities between the companies, their positions in the industry and/or the people running them. But there aren't, so your argument by analogy falls more than a bit flat. Without radical change at Microsoft, they will not only become increasingly irrelevant, but they'll very soon find that the foundation has eroded out from under them. Better analogies for Microsoft's situation are Nokia, RIM and IBM. IBM, however, managed to reinvent...
In what way do you think they are relevant? What trends in computing, or technology generally, are taking, or have taken, direction from Microsoft lately? They've been irrelevant to computing for at least the last five years, perhaps even longer.
Ignoring your point about who Microsoft is actually competing against, because I don't think you have the slightest clue if you think it's that simple...Apple will not become Microsoft. Google will, and to a great extent has, become Microsoft.Unfortunately for Microsoft, these sorts of business practices are likely to accelerate their decline. Interesting piece on this topic linked to from Daring Fireball yesterday:http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/14/microsoft-has-failed/
  I used to think you were just an Apple hater, or some sort of Android fanatic. You never had anything useful or to the point to say, although there was always plenty of vitriol. Now, after this most obtuse comment of yours ever,  I'm convinced that you have no purpose beyond trolling. What a waste of a life.
Probably a good suggestion, but I still don't understand why you spend so much time posting about something you are so sick of.
Here's a tip: There are these things called "headlines" that provide a short description of the article. Under that, there's often (always on AI) a longer, but still short, summary of it as well. Read the headline. If you still aren't sure what it's about, read the summary. Then, if it's not something you are interested in reading about, don't click on it and, voilà!, you won't be reading the article. This all works pretty much the way it did in the newspapers of yore....
New Posts  All Forums: