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 569961
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Kroc
by Kochise on Mon 19th Aug 2013 09:24 UTC 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[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Kochise on Mon 19th Aug 2013 11:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Microsoft also sells an... operating system, what only a few companies do. The fact that Windows had undocumented "features" that provided Microsoft's applications with advanced functionalities beside third parties' applications tells alot about the "benefit" of the closed source model. When you fed up, if not anger, enough developers, they go elsewhere.

Oh, what a surprise, Android provides open source model, actively developed and supported APIs, pretty good market model on which developers could live upon, just what Microsoft are now trying desperately to copy, but with their legacy grain of salt (closed source, ARM secured boot, subscription model) that consumers with now a good overview of the alternatives now despise.

But Microsoft insist. I already told in another comment ("fate of Nokia" article) that while I adore what the Windows Phone Team has made with the Lumia, they still carry two main flaws : the Microsoft and the Windows brands. Would the Windows Phone OS been sold by Nokia under its brand, nobody would have complained as much.

But if I recall correctly, even Symbian, while being a major pain in the donkey to code for, was pretty open (open Symbian initiative at the end). What Windows Phone is not.

So...

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Kochise on Mon 19th Aug 2013 14:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

The question is : wouldn't be any technical legitimation, power gain, stability benefit from switching to "another" operating system instead to stay on Windows with just contract renewal ?

Oh, yeah, it would requires porting applications. But since on Windows you already rewrite stuff from MFC to ATL, WTL, .Net, C++ to C#, etc, perhaps IT management should do a complete sum of the pro vs. con ;)

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 3