Linked by David Adams on Fri 4th Jul 2008 15:47 UTC, submitted by Caffeine Deprived
This article by Shane Schick looks at changes Steve Ballmer should consider making at Microsoft now that Bill Gates is out the door. A couple of the most interesting: making user education a priority and establishing an open source project.
Thread beginning with comment 321400
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What he should make
by Stephen! on Fri 4th Jul 2008 22:43
in reply to "RE: What he should make"
Member since:2007-11-24
RE[3]: What he should make
by siride on Sat 5th Jul 2008 14:07
in reply to "RE[2]: What he should make"
Member since:2006-01-02
bzzt, wrong!
By metonymy Linux is the name of the whole OS as well as the kernel.
Of course, you knew that. You also knew that pointing out what you did adds nothing to the discussion and shows you to be one of those RMS morons or Slashdot idiots. I am *so* glad we have people like you around.
RE[2]: What he should make
by apoclypse on Fri 4th Jul 2008 22:57
in reply to "RE: What he should make"
Member since:2007-02-17
why to deviate from openGL
because directx is cleaner, faster, and more stable
Are you serious? Opengl is used far more than directx in real mission critical applications that range from medical previz to computer animation packages. It far more stable far cleaner than directx. You've been drinkng way too much of the MS Koolaid. Don't let game developers tell you otherwise. MS has built a great platform for game development on the xbox, but that doesn't make directx cleaner and more stable. The other console makers use opengl as the basis for their toolkits and while their toolset may not be as complete as MS's offering, opengl is as clean and as stable as they come, and platform agnostic to boot. Spewing crap like this makes me think you're an MS shill.
Edited 2008-07-04 23:04 UTC
RE[2]: What he should make
by Clinton on Sat 5th Jul 2008 16:22
in reply to "RE: What he should make"
Member since:2005-07-05
Why? NT is a great kernel.
No it isn't. NT was a decent kernel back in the late 90s, but it is now quite dated.
God didn't hand down the perfect kernel to Dennis Ritchie. There are alot of idea's outside of the UNIX way, and there have been alot of things learned since UNIX.
No, but Dennis Ritchie had the sense to make an OS that was more focused, better documented, more stable, and more secure that anything Microsoft has ever put out. (by the way, it is "a lot" not "alot").
Are you talking about GDI or DirectX? How/why is it bad compared to mac/linux?
I don't know what the original poster intended. I, however, think DirectX is OK, but GDI sucks hard. Running OS X, Linux, BSD, and Windows on the same hardware makes it readily apparent that Windows is at the bottom of the GUI performance pile.
because directx is cleaner, faster, and more stable
I would agree that DirectX is easier to write for, but I don't agree that it is any faster or more stable.
by core I take it you mean kernel, because windows has a full unix userland http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/interopmigration/bb380242.aspx
While this article may be nice, there is a disparity between the marketing-speak and the reality, and I doubt you have actually used these userland tools, or you wouldn't have brought it up.
While I agree that apple sets the bar in polish and usability, the windows team has far too MUCH of this kind of crap to deal with. MS needs to reduce burocracy and streamline process, not bloat it.
I don't think the poster was suggesting Microsoft bloat anything. I think he/she was suggesting Microsoft streamline its already bloated OS.
What MS needs to do is continue what they are doing. Polish UIs and don't listen to the old users who complain where something isn't where they expect it to be, rewrite crufty APIs and don't listen when companies complain that their ancient apps don't work.
This is one comment I partially agree with. Microsoft needs to make a break from backward compatibility.
I don't agree that Microsoft should continue what they are doing, and I don't think that what they have been doing is polishing their UI. Adding transparancy and gradients to an old UI run by an old graphics engine is not "polish". Polishing a turd maybe, but definitely not "polish".
The culture and process is where the shift needs to happen... ...Just because they are a big company with a massive market does not mean they cant go agile (or scrum or whatever), it just means it is hard due to the defined culture and inertia internally.
I used to work at Microsoft, and from what I've seen, this won't be too easy for them. Microsoft's interview process is designed to identify prima donna types and get them hired.
Agile and Scrum are both designed to get a team working at its peak efficiency, and teamwork is an integral part of both philosophies. Neither work when you have a prima donna on the team. Scrum even acknowledges that prima donnas are bad for the team. Microsoft teams are almost exclusively formed of prima donnas, and I think it shows in their products.
Edited 2008-07-05 16:25 UTC
RE[3]: What he should make
by google_ninja on Sun 6th Jul 2008 20:29
in reply to "RE[2]: What he should make"
Member since:2006-02-05
No it isn't. NT was a decent kernel back in the late 90s, but it is now quite dated.
Granted, I was comparing it to UNIX.
No, but Dennis Ritchie had the sense to make an OS that was more focused, better documented, more stable, and more secure that anything Microsoft has ever put out. (by the way, it is "a lot" not "alot").
How is it more focused, stable, or secure? By reason of its UNIX-ocity? Microsoft shouldn't be held up as some paragon on kernel design, but NT is better simply because it was written by people who have learned from UNIX. (or more accurately, learned from VMS which was written by people who have learned from the mistakes of UNIX)
I don't know what the original poster intended. I, however, think DirectX is OK, but GDI sucks hard. Running OS X, Linux, BSD, and Windows on the same hardware makes it readily apparent that Windows is at the bottom of the GUI performance pile.
Really? On GNOME, you can watch the repaints as you resize a window. I don't get that off of windows or osx on the same machine.
I don't think the poster was suggesting Microsoft bloat anything. I think he/she was suggesting Microsoft streamline its already bloated OS.
The suggestion was to add a usability team to veto any change to any UI. The comment was about process, my response was that they have too much of that in the first place.
I don't agree that Microsoft should continue what they are doing, and I don't think that what they have been doing is polishing their UI. Adding transparancy and gradients to an old UI run by an old graphics engine is not "polish". Polishing a turd maybe, but definitely not "polish".
Gradients and transparency have to do with aesthetic. This is the first version of windows with any sense of it, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
Compare the usability of the old "Set up a home network" wizard to the "Network and Sharing Center". The old "Common Tasks" pane in explorer with the "Favorites" pane. The old "new" view for the control panel that actually added clicks to access anything to the new "new" view for the control pane. The move away from menubars, which their implementation of has been the whipping boy of pretty much everything written on HCI.
I used to work at Microsoft, and from what I've seen, this won't be too easy for them. Microsoft's interview process is designed to identify prima donna types and get them hired.
Let me guess, you were hired to work on a project, put in a bunch of hard work, and either a) some tard screwed up and blamed everything on you/your team, or b) some tard completely destroyed whatever you were trying to make by attempting to take credit for your hard work.
I have a bunch of friends who work at MS, and I know that kind of idiocy is prevalent through a big percentage of the company. I also know there are places that isn't the case, and alot of great work gets done (like under ScottGu at dev div).
Agile and Scrum are both designed to get a team working at its peak efficiency, and teamwork is an integral part of both philosophies. Neither work when you have a prima donna on the team. Scrum even acknowledges that prima donnas are bad for the team. Microsoft teams are almost exclusively formed of prima donnas, and I think it shows in their products.
... which is why I said a modern development methodology is probably the most important thing that needs to happen in the company.
shoulda drop the legacy and use emulators
by fejack on Sun 6th Jul 2008 18:24
in reply to "RE: What he should make"
Member since:2006-06-12
Regarding backward software compatibility, I think Apple chose to develop an emulator for older apps. That would have helped Microsoft keeping Vista light. They could have focused on speed and efficiency and develop one emulator for each previous Windows version, which would have to be purchased independently.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-02-05
I agree with abolutely nothing you said.
Why? NT is a great kernel. God didn't hand down the perfect kernel to Dennis Ritchie. There are alot of idea's outside of the UNIX way, and there have been alot of things learned since UNIX.
You must not have been around pre XP SP2.
Are you talking about GDI or DirectX? How/why is it bad compared to mac/linux?
[/q]why to deviate from openGL [/q]
because directx is cleaner, faster, and more stable
because out of the three major operating systems linux has the most bloated and least stable of the bunch?
by core I take it you mean kernel, because windows has a full unix userland http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/interopmigration/bb380242.aspx
I very, very rarely get file manager crashes in any of the three big operating systems, certainly not enough to measure.
While I agree that apple sets the bar in polish and usability, the windows team has far too MUCH of this kind of crap to deal with. MS needs to reduce burocracy and streamline process, not bloat it.
What MS needs to do is continue what they are doing. Polish UIs and don't listen to the old users who complain where something isn't where they expect it to be, rewrite crufty APIs and don't listen when companies complain that their ancient apps don't work.
The culture and process is where the shift needs to happen. Get an agile-ish process going with a new point release every month or two, and major releases every year. Get tight feedback cycles with the users. Make the development process more transparent, so that people can give feedback before things get too far. Make requirements flexible and within a smaller scope.
Just because they are a big company with a massive market does not mean they cant go agile (or scrum or whatever), it just means it is hard due to the defined culture and inertia internally.