Originally Posted by nofear1az
.....and then get rid of Ballmer who is the biggest monkey act they ever had.
Definitely. Although I never liked Gates' heavy-handed (and often underhanded) business practices, he understands technology and has a good sense for shipping product that people will buy, even if it is significantly less than perfect.
Ballmer, on the other hand, is totally clueless. With him in charge, the product changed from flawed-but-useful to fatally-flawed-and-useless. And he isn't a very good businessman either.
I've heard it said (and have often repeated) that if Ballmer wasn't Gate's college buddy, he'd be selling used cars today - and not doing very well at that either.
Originally Posted by sgntscrawn
... does anyone remember Steve Ballmer dismissing the iPhone, saying who was going to pay that much for a phone?
Originally Posted by ascii
Microsoft don't need these ads - so many people use their computers that if they just released a good solid no-nonsense version of Windows, they would be incredibly popular.
I've been saying that for years. Microsoft had several wonderful opportunities to make a clean break from their past messed up architectures, and they blew every one.
The first was when Windows 95 shipped. A new 32-bit architecture means you don't have to mimic the old broken 16-bit architecture. (And Win32s could've been silently dropped.) Legacy apps could run in an emulator, like they were already doing on NT.
The next was when Windows XP shipped. There was already lots of app breakage going on. If they had gone to a new architecture and set up an emulation environment for legacy Win32 apps, the public probably wouldn't have reacted any differently than they did with XP-as-shipped.
The third was with the introduction of the 64-bit releases of Windows.
They refuse to do the really hard work needed to ship a modern world-class OS, because they're afraid to break legacy apps (even though these apps often end up broken anyway) and they're afraid to change their APIs (partly because developers would complain, but I think mostly because their own developers don't want to learn anything new.)
Apple, in comparison, has performed this kind of rearchitecture many times since the first Macs shipped in 1984. There were two radical changes in processor (Motorola 68xxx to PowerPC to Intel) plus several more motherboard architecture changes. On the OS front, there has been one radical shift (Classic to OS X) so far, plus several less radical shifts, and another (Snow Leopard) coming soon.
Apple realizes that you have to make big changes from time to time if you want to keep a modern system from becoming a tangled mess of spaghetti code. Yes, these changes sometimes break apps, and yes customers do sometimes get angry, but if you handle it intelligently (e.g. provide emulation modes like Classic and Rosetta for several years after the switch) there is usually little long-term downside.
Originally Posted by ByronVanArsdale
My wife is now seriously considering the switch to MacBookPro from her PC - she will not run Vista under any circumstance. THIS is a significant change and there may, for once, be peace in the house around the Mac/PC subject!!!
Ditto. I'm forced to use Vista on my employer-provided computer, but there is no way I will run it on a system that I have to own and maintain.
The bugs don't bother me (they eventually do get fixed), and neither do the hardware requirements (since I frequently upgrade hardware anyway), but certain aspects of Vista's design - which won't be fixed because they are operating as intended - are completely unacceptable. One of these is the draconian product activation system. Another is the DRM-everywhere architecture that (they say) the movie studios forced them to implement.
Maybe this means I won't ever be able to play a Blu-Ray movie on my Mac. I don't care - that's why I'm going to soon be buying a PS3. It offers everything I might need a PC for (HD movies and games), costs a lot less, and doesn't force me to give up all my free time maintaining it.
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
MS should learn from them and come up with a stimulating ad about what Vista can do for your computer and thus for you! Of course, MS will have to come out with the right version of Vista, one that they can be proud of tooting it's horn.
True. Furthermore, MS should be focusing on Windows, not PCs. Microsoft shouldn't care if you're running Windows on a Mac vs a PC. And they should care a lot if you're running Linux (for example) on a brand new Dell or HP system.
It's worth noting that Apple's commercials don't (usually) attack Windows. Some even go so far as to point out that you can run Windows on Macs using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare.
Microsoft should follow a similar pattern. Tell people that they don't care if you buy a Mac. They should openly support running Vista on Mac hardware, possibly even offering packages that bundle it with Parallels or VMWare.
If they make the product good enough that people want to buy it, then they won't lose anything with this approach. And if they don't fix their product, no amount of marketing will save them.