Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Apr 2012 14:38 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Windows Phone is fighting an uphill battle. Microsoft still has work to do in terms of user experience and the big hardware partners like HTC and Samsung are starting to lose interest and putting in only token efforts. But Nokia is keeping the platform in the conversation. We're not willing to consign Windows Phone to the same level of hopelessness as the open-source webOS or the out-to-pasture BB OS precisely because Nokia is too big and too active a partner." Having a big partner is by no means a guarantee. Microsoft is doing whatever it can - both legal and should-not-be-legal - to get people to buy Windows Phone, and it isn't working. A brand only gets you so far - you need a compelling product, too, and as much as I like Windows Phone, it's just not there yet compared to iOS and Android.
Permalink for comment 513525
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Doomed
by gonzo on Tue 10th Apr 2012 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Doomed"
Member since:

Actually it is.


Only because they don't realize they have a choice.

What do you mean? Who's buying Macs? Who's downloading all those Linux distributions?

You think you're so smart and others are so stupid? Get a life pal, you're not that special.

Given a choice and equal prices, people tend not to choose Windows unless they have a specific application that they need that not on the other platform.

No, actually, people tend to use pirated Windows, risking problems with law, etc. Yes, people do know about Linux and Mac.

Only 85-90%? Use to 95% or better. It's slipping, and only going down.

Windows did not have any competition until Apple moved to x86 platform. And some people simply want something different. Nothing wrong with that.

In the end, it'll probably be a 3-way split between Linux, Apple, and Microsoft; but both Linux and Apple marketshare on the desktop is growing.

Oh yeah, this must be year of Linux on desktop, right? I've been listening to that since like '98 or so. Windows 7 is selling like crazy. Even more embarassing for Linux & Macs, people rather stay with Windows XP, 12 years old Windows than going Linux/Mac.

People tend to steal Windows, rather than to use free Linux. That says enough.

The Win32 API for one - haven't looked at WinRT yet, but I doubt they fixed some of major security issues that were present in Win32 (e.g. Handles and their use - it's kind of a gaping whole when another application can without your permission change the interface of your application.)

No system is perfect, but Win32 is just fine.

But so is the whole Program Files structure - or Program Files (x86) for 32-bit software under 64-bit Windows.

That is a good thing actually.

The Windows Registry was a great concept, but poorly implemented and completely unmaintainable. The list goes on.

What do you mean poorly implemented and completely unmaintainable?

You're just repeating usual /. trash. No substance in your claims.

Under Windows NT (of which XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are part of) yes, you could - but only if you used some very advanced tools to do so.

What advanced tools? Since Windows 2000, you simply go to Disk Management and mount disk to a folder. I don't think NT matters any more.

Oh, and they don't let you use those tools on anything less than the Professional versions (at least for Vista and later).

Not sure, I'd have to check, but if so, so what? Home users don't do stuff like that. They simply plug new hard drive in, get new letter associated to it and that's it.

You cannot do what he is saying from the installer.

Yes, from the Windows installer you can choose which drive to install Windows to. But you cannot change where the Program Files, Program Files (x86). User Profiles, or other system directories go in the installer.

Aha, OK. Yes, you can not.

You have to move them after-the-fact, update the appropriate registry settings (if you know them, or know the tools to modify them), and then hope you don't have any applications that require those folders to be on C:\; and yes, there are many applications out there that are hard coded for Program Files to be C:\Program Files, and for the Windows Directory to be C:\Windows, or for the System32 directory to be C:\Windows\system32.

You can use unattended installation actually to solve that problem.

BUT AGAIN, this is not an issue: in network environments, you have roaming profiles anyway.

On a single desktop, it simply doesn't matter. You simply do backup of your files to a separate drive and that's it.

More do that than you realize; but I do agree - it's mostly the hardware extremists, and the people that are having broken computers fixed.
Yea, you would have to tweak it to make it work. While OS X just loads all drivers, so no need to tweak.
Not so much. To get Windows to do a lot of things you have to tweak it for your use; though most people just pay BestBuy, etc to do it for them.

Actually, I have to correct myself: how do they distribute system images where I work? They prepare images, then run sysprep (before, not sure it is still used with windows Vista/7) and then can "restore" that image to any new hardware. I think those images can also be maintained offline (patching, drivers, etc).

So, no, it is not a problem, it is solved long time ago.

Installing MS SQL Server on your desktop to do development only works for a very small usage of SQL Server. Any serious usage of SQL Server requires a dedicated server to host SQL Server.

Same applies to any database. If you need HA or high performance, you need server grade hardware and/or cluster environment.

However, we (programmers, where I work) all have SQL Server running on our desktops and we all have no problems doing our work. Databases are not that small. WTF are you talking about?

SQL Server is not a very good database implementation. It's almost on par with Oracle; however, unless you are building a major database farm (and sometimes even then) neither Oracle or SQL Server are very good as they are too feature rich and bloated.

LOL. I won't even comment this stupidity. Sorry, not trying to insult you, but you are just being ridiculous.

Postgres, MySQL, BerkleyDB, and many others will do 99% of database usage far better than SQL Server or Oracle.


All my Windows development (yes, using Visual Studios) is now done under a Virtual Machine; and honestly, Windows runs better for me that way than it ever did as my host OS. For once, Visual Studios and Windows isn't having major performance issues.

Yeah right. Everybody knows running Windows inside VM works better than running in on bare metal :-)

I use Linux for everything else.

What else? Surfin' the net and ping local host all night long? ;) Yeah, you can't do that on Windows ;)

Bottom line:
See how great your Linux is, so you need Windows inside VM to get everything done.

I don't need second OS. Case closed.

Edited 2012-04-10 17:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2