[lifebuoy]

Originally Posted by comfortablynumb

So, does this mean we Nokia users will have to re-start our phones every few hours now?

Sorry, just couldn't resist it!

Cheers,
Vikram

Not only that. A stupid update every now and then, service packs once a year, genuine software check DLL or equivalent, loads of pop up windows saying "Are you sure ?" with a Yes, No and Cancel options. Not to forget the Blue Screen with 0xFFF errors - your mobile has been shut down whatever and an aero look for that flahing green bar to slide all over on any progress bar !

[pratyush6]

Interesting article on how Elop has affected Microsoft's purchase price of Nokia

http://qz.com/120661/stephen-elop-mi...dset-business/

Nokia is down to its one third since Elop has taken over the company and now he is the top man to replace Steve. I do not think it is some coincidence.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by lifebuoy

Not only that. A stupid update every now and then, service packs once a year, genuine software check DLL or equivalent, loads of pop up windows saying "Are you sure ?" with a Yes, No and Cancel options. Not to forget the Blue Screen with 0xFFF errors - your mobile has been shut down whatever and an aero look for that flahing green bar to slide all over on any progress bar !

Something like this?

Originally Posted by carboy

Because of the failures in the Mobile Space, Vista & Win8, people think Microsoft has done very badly in Ballmer's reign. But if you look at hard data - Ballmer tripled Microsoft revenues and doubled profits since he took over.

I had written something about Ballmer here - End of an era : Bill Gates retires

[driving_smartly]

Originally Posted by carboy

I don't think there will be any reason to worry for a few years, if at all.

@ Carboy,

Thanks a lot.

At the moment I am holding onto Omnia W (Just Changed the battery).
I will wait and watch for some more months and see what stand / measures MS takes.

[alpha1]

I think this was kind of expected.
After google got into mobile/hand held devices business by buying Motorola, why would MS be left behind?

Besides, the future is in hand held devices only.

[Baddychat]

Originally Posted by carboy

This is the dollar figures of some MS software not found on secretaries desks.

Visual Studio - a billion dolllars.
ERP, CRM and Accounting Software - another billion dollars.
Microsoft Exchange - around 2.5 billion dollars.
SQL Server - around 3.5 billion dollars.
Windows Server - 6 billion dollars
Server management software - a billion dollars.

Microsoft makes really big money on Enterprise Software.

@carboy - office, exchange and share point make more money for MS than all the server and development tools put together. We are not even considering revenue from Windows/windows live. AFAIK dev tools like VS retail for 98% discount off the rack price when purchased by companies who are into development. Deserved since I feel bad for people who actually have to develop C++ based software using the VS environment.
I could go on and on. MS makes stuff which is easy to use is one thing I could agree with.

Also Windows Server generates revenue on an OEM basis. You individual customers find people buying licenses for Windows server. Manufacturers of h/w generally do and IT support for big companies generally have access to a few 3-4 year licenses.

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Was talking about US Govt. Would be nice to know which of these and how much of those are used - in departments for which Blackberry was originally designed for.

BTW, which of these qualify to be called "an original MS product"? Nah, don't bother, forget I asked.

+1 NONE. All copied with better UI. :-)

my $.02 on this whole Nokia-MS thing is that if the partnership which started 3 years ago appx hadnt materialized then, we would not have had a brand called Nokia selling phones in 2013. I have read a lot of comments about how good their Symbian based OS and meego were. Agree. But do they match up to the iOS user experience. No way. They don't. So Nokia should have started investing on a touch-centric OS or tied up with MS earlier. Maybe MS did not have a competition worthy version of their OS ready in any form. Look what happened with BB. They came with BB 10 their touch OS 4 years late. They are finished.
The only plus for the MS-Nokia partnership is their OS right now. Users are familiar with it even though not with the tile interface. That is where they can do well provided their app ecosystem grows at a rapid pace to match the Android market at least by 2014.
One area where they could score big is tablets. Not enough Windows tablets around and I think that there is a huge market potential for it. A good product and there is a chance that we might see users walking away from Android.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by Baddychat

... Nokia should have started investing on a touch-centric OS or tied up with MS earlier. Maybe MS did not have a competition worthy version of their OS ready in any form. ...

True.

In fact, MS had a good thing going with Win CE. The tail-light chase then was Symbian and Palm OS. They succeeded to large extent. Put a group of intelligent minds together, and they will create something good. They did, so there was a slew of *very decent* CE based products in the market.

There were plenty of takers of the bare-bones CE system around the turn of century, but then internal to MS they started treating CE as a step child, as it didn't excite them. No marketing dollars, no hoopla, no business class trips for executives. Woof-woof-whimper-whimper-tail-wag "Now I don't know what to do"!!! Again, another tail-light chase that went cold.

Like Google did it later with Android (albeit in a better coordinated way), MS had left it to device manufacturers like HTC, Samsung, Asus etc. - without doing *any* value add themselves. Again, unlike what Google is doing - creating APIs to make user experience uniform. If one relies only on the device manufacturers, one is neither creating a great product nor contributing to a great user experience. Samsung creates and sells more, and definitely better, devices than Nokia today. With what? Better User Experience.

So now, with WM8 MS is on the n-th tail-light chase, pulling Nokia with them - and this time there are 3 cars to chase! Ads saying "With a Nokia 520, you can do 5 things in 2 minutes". Yeah right! Even kids in high school know better.

Perhaps they should realize, as you said, there are many users like me who would say "Chuck brand, reputation or how big is their turnover, get something that works well and is easy to use": Good User Experience!

[k_nitin_r]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Again, another tail-light chase that went cold.

Windows Mobile development was as easy as it could get for software developers because it was essentially the same as developing a regular Windows application in Visual Studio, with minor differences to account for the differences in processing abilities. However, they pulled the plug on that convenience.

Nokia was on to something with the Nokia N9, but with the partnership with Microsoft, they had to toss it out the Window and exclusively use Windows Mobile.

There were lots of missed opportunities for both firms because the higher level executives did not have the excitement for what consumers liked and instead pursued things that looked good on paper.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by k_nitin_r

... because the higher level executives did not have the excitement for what consumers liked and instead pursued things that looked good on paper.

That is legendary!

Money/opulence/fame was only for those who emulated Don Quixote - the bigger the windmill the better. Lot of funds available - one only needed a bombastic objective that can sweep the boss, and their boss, off their feet! Small practical objectives are never a cause célèbre that can take one places.

And then, like the colloquial term KPK (khaye, peeye, khiske) they would go off in the search for the next windmill as soon as project funds were consumed. The result would have been a foregone conclusion a few months after start of project (project window usually was 2 years). Anyone who has been a part of MS initiatives will know that.

[sudeepg]

Originally Posted by lifebuoy

Not only that. A stupid update every now and then, service packs once a year, genuine software check DLL or equivalent, loads of pop up windows saying "Are you sure ?" with a Yes, No and Cancel options. Not to forget the Blue Screen with 0xFFF errors - your mobile has been shut down whatever and an aero look for that flahing green bar to slide all over on any progress bar !

Originally Posted by msdivy

Something like this?

I had written something about Ballmer here - End of an era : Bill Gates retires

Originally Posted by k_nitin_r

Windows Mobile development was as easy as it could get for software developers because it was essentially the same as developing a regular Windows application in Visual Studio, with minor differences to account for the differences in processing abilities. However, they pulled the plug on that convenience.

Nokia was on to something with the Nokia N9, but with the partnership with Microsoft, they had to toss it out the Window and exclusively use Windows Mobile.

There were lots of missed opportunities for both firms because the higher level executives did not have the excitement for what consumers liked and instead pursued things that looked good on paper.

Majority of the people who go about thrashing MS do not really understand the value proposition they offer. Agree they might have missed new innovations but the fact is that they continue to offer software that has value for money. People who complain about service packs, frequent updates need to realize that a software update is just an enhancement or a bugfix that the company offers for free. Microsoft fixes more bugs in their software set than any other company in the world. Why would that be bad? Why would it be bad for a company to fix bugs & include feature requests that customers report and release it as an update? just how many companies fix security bugs today? If you read through the internet, you will see how many services were hacked because security flaws were left unresolved. Keep in mind that every bug/feature requests cost time and money and they spend that time and effort resolving the issue for customers. Ever called MS support and some other support? If you haven't then please try and see the difference in support experience.

I am a developer and I know it is hard to engineer software that is bug free. There is no software in the world that is "perfect" or without requiring maintenance. Also, the needs of business change as time goes by and therefore the need to update. As I said before, people who thrash MS do not understand the key facts. For them an update is just an annoyance.

Also remember the fact that Windows is a platform where other developers can write and deploy software. A lot of people complain about windows crashing and therefore unstable. The fact is that the machine had some device driving software which was poorly written such that the operating system cannot recover from it and therefore crashes. Device driving software is sourced and written by third parties. I understand for a layman, how an operating system works is not important. But its pointless to make loose statements without understanding the facts. It's synonymous to purchasing a car and for some reason having put a third grade engine oil and when the engine seizes up, blame the manufacturer .

I will agree that MS didn't have great innovations to call out like Apple or Android did in the past few years, but the reality is that they have consistently delivered extremely useful software for enterprise business (which is where their focus has been mostly) as well as the consumer. Windows, Office, Exchange and recently office 365 cloud offerings are one of the best software and services available today.

[Baddychat]

Originally Posted by k_nitin_r

Windows Mobile development was as easy as it could get for software developers because it was essentially the same as developing a regular Windows application in Visual Studio, with minor differences to account for the differences in processing abilities. However, they pulled the plug on that convenience.

Nitin, I kind of have to disagree with you on this. The OS development for handheld devices is a whole lot different. They have to have a much lesser memory footprint, should be able to do certain actions/events better than desktop OS'es and users wouldnt care if some features are missed out on. The biggest advantage of iOS probably is that it underpinnings are based on traditional Unix. To sum it up, its not just scaling down when you are making a mobile OS based on a desktop variant already available.

Originally Posted by DerAlte

And then, like the colloquial term KPK (khaye, peeye, khiske) they would go off in the search for the next windmill as soon as project funds were consumed. The result would have been a foregone conclusion a few months after start of project (project window usually was 2 years). Anyone who has been a part of MS initiatives will know that.

LOL. I too have heard this from my friends who work/ed there. classic case Bing ?
MS were marginally smarter this time around when they decided to keep the interfaces for the desktop and mobile versions of W8 the same.
And on the Nokia-MS partnership the high end phones are selling primarily due to the camera "Best Smartphone Camera Ever" tagline. They need more if they want to increase their market share.

[lifebuoy]

Originally Posted by sudeepg

Majority of the people who go about thrashing MS do not really understand the value proposition they offer. Microsoft fixes more bugs in their software set than any other company in the world. Keep in mind that every bug/feature requests cost time and money and they spend that time and effort resolving the issue for customers. Ever called MS support and some other support? If you haven't then please try and see the difference in support experience.

I am a developer and I know it is hard to engineer software that is bug free. For them an update is just an annoyance.

Also remember the fact that Windows is a platform where other developers can write and deploy software. It's synonymous to purchasing a car and for some reason having put a third grade engine oil and when the engine seizes up, blame the manufacturer .

I will agree that MS didn't have great innovations Windows, Office, Exchange and recently office 365 cloud offerings are one of the best software and services available today.

Hi Sudeep,
Looks like you are an MS employee / developer and have taken things to heart. While most comments were on the lighter side, there is no denying the fact that MS products are made to be user - friendly at the cost of being less robust and inherently flawed in their design approach. Next, MS is also known to be a big copy cat (using features and technology that has been proven by other OS / rivals) to deliver the seemingly "good and value" software that you are referring to. A good example is the NT File system which is MS version of the Unix FS.

Every developer knows the values of bugs. The "value" comes when you put out a software for test albeit in the user's premises, that's what MS does and then earns brownie points by releasing fixes ans updates. I have developed software for airborne avionics applications that have never required patches or updates to deliver bombs from 12 km with a CEP of 5m.

The platform should be robust in not allowing rogue device drivers to permit operations capable of OS crashing. That is not a 3rd party flaw, it is the OS flaw.

MS has always used their clout to subdue other products and buy them out when their popularity seemed threatening. Cases of hotmail, Netscape vs IE and the Nokia handsets now are apt examples.

All in all, its better for consumers like us when such upheavals happen, we stand to benefit, one way or the other.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by lifebuoy

I have developed software for airborne avionics applications that have never required patches or updates to deliver bombs from 12 km with a CEP of 5m.

Can it run on all kind of aircrafts and support every type of bomb?

I am sure even a newbie can write a hello world program that will never need an update. Even I have written applications that never needed updates in more than 10 years. But these are all wrong examples.

Windows is a platform that allows tens of thousands of devices and powers millions of third party applications. When you develop a platform that is used by other developers to develop on, you can find a steady stream of bugs and enhancement requests coming your way. And enhancements can lead to newer bugs. There is no point in comparing an OS to an application with very narrow specs. Even uBuntu keeps downloading patches on a daily basis, not very different than Windows.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by lifebuoy

That is not a 3rd party flaw, it is the OS flaw.

Thats true. Being an OS you can't let all and sundry application to take over & crash the system.

The point is, MS has a company refused to honor security concerns till they burnt their fingers. Unix was mature by then. MS didn't even pick up the best practices. For instance,
1) Separation of root & non-root operations, which Unix had since its birth. MS by default ran everything as root and fell in the pit.
2) Allowing un-trusted device drivers & applications to run as root.

MS got their act finally together in Win XP SP2 and Win 7 is a good desktop OS (after Ballmar bungled Vista). It is interesting to note that Bill Gates had a say in XP & Win7.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by lifebuoy

Hi Sudeep,
Looks like you are an MS employee / developer and have taken things to heart. While most comments were on the lighter side, there is no denying the fact that MS products are made to be user - friendly at the cost of being less robust and inherently flawed in their design approach.

I don't recall a Windows Server crashing on me anytime in the last 10 years. I don't even remember Win7 crashing once.

Originally Posted by lifebuoy

Next, MS is also known to be a big copy cat (using features and technology that has been proven by other OS / rivals) to deliver the seemingly "good and value" software that you are referring to. A good example is the NT File system which is MS version of the Unix FS.

So which Unix FS is NTFS a copy of? NTFS has journaling since donkeys years - from the beginning - early 90s. I think Linux got a journaling filesystem may be 10 years after NT (bother ReiserFS & ext3 got into Linux Kernels only in the 2000s, IIRC - and I think ext3 was quite buggy in the beginning to lot of people stuck to ext2 till it stabilized). I think among Unixes, AIX & Solaris have journaling from around the same time as NT. Irix has journaling from the mid 90s, I think.

Do you know what's the advantage of journaling - if the power goes off, the stability of the file system is maintained - I have powered off Win NT 20 years back without corrupting the file sytem. Around the same time, many of the unixes used to get screwed if this happened - you had to rebuild the file system which takes hours.

Another thing is that the architect for WinNT from the beginning (20+ years back) was Dave Culter. Cutler used to work for DEC(VAX/VMS). The OS he was working on there got cancelled after they completed building it. At that time, Gates asked Cutler to join MS and build an OS - WinNT is the result of that. That's why Windows has more in common with VMS than the unixes. For eg. in a typical unix a process is created by a fork followed by an exec - that's not the case in Windows & VMS.
(one of the apocryphal stories is that Cutler named it WNT(win nt) because is exactly VMS with each letter incremented by 1).