Linked by snydeq on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:46 UTC
Windows DOS 4.0, Zune, and Windows 8 are but a few of the landmarks among 25 years of failures Redmond-style, writes InfoWorld's Woody Leonhard in a round-up of Microsoft's 13 worst missteps of all time. 'Over the years, Microsoft's made some incredibly good moves, even if they felt like mistakes at the time: mashing Word and Excel into Office; offering Sabeer Bhatia and cohorts $400 million for a year-old startup; blending Windows 98 and NT to form Windows 2000; sticking a weird Israeli motion sensor on a game box; buying Skype for an unconscionable amount of money. (The jury's still out on the last one.) Along the way, Microsoft has had more than its fair share of bad mistakes; 2012 alone was among the most tumultuous years in Microsoft history I can recall. This year you can bet that Redmond will do everything in its power to prove 2012 naysayers wrong. To do so, Microsoft must learn from the following dirty baker's dozen of its most dreck-laden decisions, the ones that have had the very worst consequences, from a customer's point of view.'
Thread beginning with comment 548788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: He missed one or two or three
by boxy on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:46 UTC in reply to "He missed one or two or three"
Member since:

Probably just two since he worked Windows product activation in there with Genuine Advantage. Another is: alienating your most faithful customers. Constantly changing stuff for the sake of change with no real advantage. Example: Office 2007 can't be deployed and managed with software group policies, you need to purchase Microsoft System Center or what ever they call it today. However, I'm used to that. The biggest misstep that I can't get over is .NET. It's a bigger mistake than IE6, and IE6 is pretty bad.

What specific issues do you have with .NET that could back up your claim that it is a misstep?

Reply Parent Score: 4

Morgan Member since:

What specific issues do you have with .NET that could back up your claim that it is a misstep?

I think the perception that .NET is a "bad" platform comes from the same place as Java's bad rep: It attracts substandard coders because it's an easy and fun language to jump into. I've seen some stellar .NET apps that were fast, functional and beautiful. And I've seen some real stinkers too.

I've always felt that a program can be functional and elegant no matter the language it was written in, given a coder who knows her stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 4

moondevil Member since:

I used to think like that as well.

But when you see how bad off-shoring C projects can be, you see that the language really does not matter.

On the other hand there are a few off-shoring companies doing cool Scala projects.

Bad developers are easy to get everywhere in the world, regardless of the programming language.

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:

.NET gets a bad reputation from version 1.0 and 1.1 which were both quite awful. Also WebForms is pretty evil for Web Development especially if you haven't come from a Swing/WinForms/VB6 background.

VS 2003 isn't much better it takes about a day to install (I am not joking).
I also remember that on a particular CMS project, that attaching the debugger usually required surrounding your workstation in a pentagram made of red biros, while chanting demonic passages out of the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis. If it wouldn't attach, only a reboot seemed to do the trick.

Anything after .NET 2.0 is quite nice to work with in comparison.

Edited 2013-01-15 20:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3