""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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-04-01
Member since:2005-12-15
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:2005-12-15
If you bothered to read more than just a few recent ones, and casually, you'd see I'm not even close to your stereotype suggestion.
The discussion that I responded to was not specific to Windows. It was about technology in general, to which I stand by what I said. Microsoft under that light doesn't have nor have they ever had a monopoly on it. The words "technology" and "industry" are vast categories that aren't locked into "Windows".
The industry is a whole lot more than just Windows. I even said they have the ability to control many aspects of technology, but not all.
Also, taking personal swipes at people is very tacky, so please refrain from directing them towards me and other people who don't have purist points of view towards any one company or point of discussion.
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