Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 19th Aug 2013 03:46 UTC
Windows Microsoft recently wrote off a $900 million loss on its ARM-based Surface tablets. But according to Computerworld, the company intends to double down on its bet in hardware devices. CEO Steve Ballmer says that "Going forward, our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services... We will design, create and deliver through us and through third parties a complete family of Windows-powered devices." Look to Microsoft to produce more new hardware as it fights for market share in the handheld space. Ultimately Microsoft intends to develop a common code base across all devices -- from servers to desktops to handhelds -- that supports "write once, run anywhere."

Analyst Frank Gillett of Forrester Research says that Microsoft is fully committed to shifting away from its traditional emphasis on packaged software and into handheld devices and services (such as subscription software). He sees this as a fundamental reorientation, and says that "No matter what, it's a messy process."
Thread beginning with comment 569957
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 19th Aug 2013 08:32 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

This has been going on in Microsoft since .NET in 2002. There are people in Microsoft who have their heads in the clouds and are constantly pushing for a rewrite of WIN32. Whoever they are they seem to care only about their utopian idea and not a single jot for the users who have to live there.

My personal opinion is that had Microsoft not wasted a decade on .NET and it's mutant children (Silverlight) and instead doubled-down on _things that matter_ (like security, stability) instead of shiny things (Vista) they would have seen 10 years of growth, not 10 years of flat lining.

Windows 2000 was pitch-perfect. A Microsoft that was listening to needs instead of dreams. Had they just iterated on that and stopped their creepy burlesque show in front of the consumer they might have even stopped the iPhone even being a viable product in the first place.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Kochise on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:24 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

The problem is that in a world of open source and viable alternatives, they still persist in insisting to deliver close sourced operating systems, applications, file format, and still believes that the users are eager to pay for a yearly subscription like a cash cow, they are going to face disillusion.

While I agree Windows 2000 was just what everyone needed as a base operating system, its Windows XP evolution was welcome, even though it was not quite a revolution (the default blue theme was ugly, oliva was better).

I can understand they wanted to cover a large audience with Windows XP (2000 covering pro market, Me was the dead cow) thus allowing to get a common base to focus on Family as well as Pro with a single operating system (server version was kept on a separate branch). And it was effective until x64 became mainstream and the win32 foundation had to get a major rewrite (see the XP 64 bits mess). Hence Vista.

Windows 7 should have stayed the way it was without the need to evolve into this monstrous Metro UI targeting kids. Microsoft then only focused on Family form factor (smartphone, tablet) and obviously get rid of Pro altogether, like they know Pro now uses Linux as main OS, since Windows has became irrelevant in its futile attempts to refocus itself while probing several technologies without following industry standards.

Sad state of affair, while I agree that Microsoft, beside its bad behaviors, has brought some kind of standardization of the computer market (remember the various yet incompatible file format between Mac, Atari, Amiga, Archimedes, etc ?) with an unified UI, API, etc... But instead to be an active player in the IT field by adapting to the requests, they imposed their solutions.

Just like IBM did before. Then throwing out support after a while, forcing consumers to renew their whole infrastructure once in a while. And because some consumers are fed up with, that's where x86 shined alot due to its unprecedented backward compatibility to run 20 or 30 yo softwares through virtualization.

Kochise

BTW : "Write Once, Run Everywhere" might be achieved easily using LISP. Now we have 100's of different programming languages that, while being mostly useless duplicates, do not reach a percent of LISP's flexibility and powerfulness.

With LISP you can do IA, web sites, 3D modelers and renderer, video game (goal), satellite firmwares that can do distant REPL, run on Apple IIe (recent news) as well as multi-core processors, etc... So why using mammoth languages like Java when LISP is enough ?

Oh, yes, it sadly requires you to be a real programmers that understand what you're doing. Perhaps by leveraging the coders' competences, we also benefit from better code, algorithms, etc. Who knows ? Now that anybody is given the ability to code with baby programming languages, see the mess around.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by moondevil on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

You are aware that Microsoft is not the only company in the world selling software that is closed source or makes use of proprietary formats, right?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by acobar on Mon 19th Aug 2013 12:09 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

.. obviously get rid of Pro altogether, like they know Pro now uses Linux as main OS, since Windows has became irrelevant in its futile attempts to refocus itself while probing several technologies without following industry standards.


May you believe or not, around me, what means technical area (mainly civil, electrical and mechanical engineering) and also on development of commercial applications it is still MS inside workstations (the mythical pro) by a far large margin, so mine anecdotal, particular, and insignificant experience dares to disagree. Mind you, I would like to totally jump off, but Autocad on technical side and MS workgroup foundations keep me from doing that.

My I ask, around here, who more has the same kind of experience?


.. Now we have 100's of different programming languages that, while being mostly useless duplicates, do not reach a percent of LISP's flexibility and powerfulness.


Oh, LISP, not my favorite language but fine nonetheless, have developed some routines for Autocad on its own dialect, AutoLISP. Anyway, the language is seldom the problem, be acquainted and proficient using/developing high quality libraries is what takes "ages", languages can be learned on "days".

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Mon 19th Aug 2013 10:44 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

.NET has not been a waste of time. What planet are you on?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 19th Aug 2013 11:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I don't question the .NET language, I've never actually heard anything bad about C#; but the .NET strategy has been a massive misstep followed by many smaller ones.

In theory, .NET is good, in reality it has sucked. It's not reliable enough (I've had to fix enough machies where .NET has gone corrupt -- it's a true pain to clean up and fix), it's a burden on users (downloading / installing runtimes), doubly so ten years ago, hasn't really delivered on promises and Microsoft don't even dog food it after discovering that rewriting Explorer in managed code was impossible. It's a burden on developers too with constantly changing tools, runtimes, platform strategies (WinMo 6! 6.5! 7! 8! Silverlight is the future! HTML5 is the future! WinRT is the future!)

Looking at all this, I can only imagine that it would have been easier on every computer user (Microsoft themselves, end-users and developers) if they had just kept iterating on WIN32.

Reply Parent Score: 4