Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 13:12 UTC
Microsoft

Microsoft Corp. today announced that Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer has decided to retire as CEO within the next 12 months, upon the completion of a process to choose his successor. In the meantime, Ballmer will continue as CEO and will lead Microsoft through the next steps of its transformation to a devices and services company that empowers people for the activities they value most.

“There is never a perfect time for this type of transition, but now is the right time,” Ballmer said. “We have embarked on a new strategy with a new organization and we have an amazing Senior Leadership Team. My original thoughts on timing would have had my retirement happen in the middle of our company’s transformation to a devices and services company. We need a CEO who will be here longer term for this new direction.”

This was long overdue. Microsoft needs fresh blood at the top - not a salesman, but a visionary.

Thread beginning with comment 570472
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

Pure bunk. First of all x86 (originating in Intel 8086) was not created because of any Microsoft.


Okay, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing list of computers that used x86 & the PC BIOS, that pre-date the IBM PC, and weren't built for a Microsoft operating system.

(Waiting....)

While PC industry grew well, the rise of one huge monopolist there (operating systems wise) was the worst thing that happened to it.


So having a standard hardware architecture, and compatible implementations from multiple vendors... that's a BAD thing? Because that wouldn't have come about if there hadn't been a single dominant OS/OS vendor to necessitate a standard hardware architecture.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by acobar on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 18:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Okay, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing list of computers that used x86 & the PC BIOS, that pre-date the IBM PC, and weren't built for a Microsoft operating system.


Except that was IBM that promoted the standard and Microsoft was asked to build an OS to run on it and not the other way around. If was not for MS-DOS we probably would have been served CP/M, but there is no value on trying to rewrite history now.

So having a standard hardware architecture, and compatible implementations from multiple vendors... that's a BAD thing? Because that wouldn't have come about if there hadn't been a single dominant OS/OS vendor to necessitate a standard hardware architecture.


It is a wonderful thing but, it seems to me, his point was that MS was irrelevant, to a degree, to what happened then, if was not for it, would be someone else. Microsoft only started to be a true power force way latter, around MS Winwdows 3.0 and got total power with Windows 95, from there it started to really flex its muscles.

Edited 2013-08-23 18:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 20:48 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"Okay, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing list of computers that used x86 & the PC BIOS, that pre-date the IBM PC, and weren't built for a Microsoft operating system.


Except that was IBM that promoted the standard and Microsoft was asked to build an OS to run on it and not the other way around.
"

And...? That doesn't change the fact that virtually every PC that has been actually built & sold was intended to run a Microsoft operating system. Or the fact that the PC's success went hand-in-hand with Microsoft's success.

"So having a standard hardware architecture, and compatible implementations from multiple vendors... that's a BAD thing? Because that wouldn't have come about if there hadn't been a single dominant OS/OS vendor to necessitate a standard hardware architecture.


It is a wonderful thing but, it seems to me, his point was that MS was irrelevant, to a degree, to what happened then
"

Let's imagine if, back in the day, Microsoft had, say, kowtowed to IBM and introduced measures to prevent their OS from running on non-IBM PC clones. By your reasoning & shmerl's, that wouldn't have had any impact on the relative success of the PC platform.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 23rd Aug 2013 20:07 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

IBM PC was developed not because of Microsoft and not for Microsoft, it's other way around. Do you get the idea?

Edited 2013-08-23 20:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by nej_simon on Sat 24th Aug 2013 08:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

...despite the fact that you are most likely posting from a computer using a hardware architecture that was created specifically for Microsoft's operating systems, and which became widespread entirely because of Microsoft's success.


Okay, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing list of computers that used x86 & the PC BIOS, that pre-date the IBM PC, and weren't built for a Microsoft operating system.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 26th Aug 2013 20:53 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Okay, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing list of computers that used x86 & the PC BIOS, that pre-date the IBM PC, and weren't built for a Microsoft operating system.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts [/q]

Ah, so you're one of those people who think that there's nothing to an architecture except the CPU. Noted.

Reply Parent Score: 3