""Microsoft is dead", wrote Paul Graham late last week in one of the silliest columns I've seen in a while. Graham is a smart guy, and probably the one most responsible for you not getting entirely inundated by spam. His 'A plan for spam' outlined the method now used by most anti-spam software. In this latest message, 'Microsoft Is Dead', Graham argues that the Redmond giant was killed by Google, which showed people that the desktop wasn't nearly as important in the age of Web-based applications. Plain and simple, Graham is wrong. There's no way anyone could argue that Microsoft is dead. Just look at the numbers. When a software runs more than 90% of the desktops on the planet - and will for the foreseeable future - it's simply not dead." Update: Paul Graham has clarified some of his statements and explicitly has stated that Microsoft is not in danger of going out of business.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-15
I don't know I agree entirely with that. They're certainly doing a good job at forcing people to upgrade to Vista with new PCs. They're certainly going to force it by way of PC gaming too with DirectX 10.
Microsoft has the capacity to control many aspects of technology, I feel. It may not be everything, but they never had a monopolistic control anyway.
Edited 2007-04-14 23:44
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-08-07
Microsoft has the capacity to control many aspects of technology, I feel. It may not be everything, but they never had a monopolistic control anyway.
Are you high? Have you been pulling a Van Winkle the last decade or so? Were you in a coma when the 'Soft was under DOJ investigation in the states--the lack of outcome that's forced the EU to step up and start fining them for every little thing they can find as a reaction?
[...] they never had a monopolistic control anyway.
You sound like a Microsoft shill when you say things like this. In fact, giving your recent posts a casual look over I'd say that's exactly what you sound like. How'd you get that high comment rating of yours while making such comments as this?
They're certainly doing a good job at forcing people to upgrade to Vista with new PCs.
Here's a hint: Nobody is enthused about Vista. Take a look around and maybe conduct a straw poll of some of your local OEM shops and company suppliers and ask how much churn the latest release has generated... It ain't pretty. Bottom line? Windows 2000 was 'good enough' but XP was an evolutionary release that included several nice features that made it worthwhile to upgrade-- Vista? Not so good..
Oh! It's a bit ...shall we say....telling to see you claim no monopolistic powers at Microsoft, and then talk about how they're forcing people to upgrade with each new machine sold.
--bornagainpenguin (who expects there to be quite a number of people adopting that moniker via large switches to Linux or MacOS in the next few years)
Member since:
2005-04-01
Obviously, what Graham meant was that Microsoft is no longer a force to IT professionals, and he's right. Windows Vista landed with very little interest from IT pros or consumers, and most of the software they have introduced in the last years is either too little too late or the same thing rehashed.
Compare that to Google and Apple, whose products continue to amaze, compel, and inspire, and build a fanatic following who will, eventually, get the message out that Microsoft is passe.
He's right - Microsoft has moved from a front runner into a laid back, well placed force. But they are no longer controlling where technology, as an industry, goes.