Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #1366 > unrolled thread

[OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

Contents

  [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-18 10:48 -0400
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-18 18:56 +0000
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-18 20:58 +0100
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-18 20:06 +0000
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Theo Tress" <rbk@online.de> - 2012-07-19 10:03 +0200
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-18 19:16 -0400
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-19 08:56 +0000
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-19 08:23 -0400
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-20 03:36 +0000
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-20 04:28 -0400
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 14:12 +0100
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-20 08:29 -0400
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-20 19:20 +0000
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Norm Fowler <NormF4@spoof.com> - 2012-07-20 16:33 -0700
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-25 01:43 -0400
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-25 08:32 -0400
                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Farnsworth" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-07-25 16:11 -0400
                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 19:03 -0600
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-19 08:46 -0400
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Vacuum Sealed <noodnutt@gmail.com> - 2012-07-20 00:47 +1000
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Jeff Johnson" <i.get@enough.spam> - 2012-07-19 14:10 -0400
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-19 18:43 -0600
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Helmut_Meukel <Helmut_Meukel@bn-hof.invalid> - 2012-07-19 10:56 +0200
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Thorsten Albers" <gudea@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 12:43 +0000
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> - 2012-07-24 10:07 +0200
        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-24 10:20 +0100
          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 10:58 -0300
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 10:15 -0400
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 11:36 -0300
                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 12:39 -0700
                  Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 17:50 -0300
                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 14:38 -0700
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 20:54 -0300
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 16:59 -0700
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 07:00 +0100
                          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 10:28 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 15:03 +0100
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 11:17 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 18:18 +0100
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 14:26 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 18:55 -0600
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-27 21:24 -0400
                                Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-27 21:26 -0600
                                  Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-28 09:46 -0400
                                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-28 13:43 -0600
                                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2012-07-28 13:46 -0600
                                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-28 17:13 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-27 22:36 -0300
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 22:07 -0300
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 18:21 -0700
                          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 10:33 -0300
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-25 10:00 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-07-25 20:14 +0000
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 06:52 +0100
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-25 10:31 -0700
                          Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-25 20:19 +0100
                            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-25 12:41 -0700
                  Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 19:27 -0400
                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-24 20:51 -0300
                      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-24 22:03 -0400
                        Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-25 11:15 -0300
                    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you Karl E. Peterson <karl@exmvps.org> - 2012-07-24 16:51 -0700
            Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Clive Lumb" <clumb2@gratui_en_anglais.fr.invalid> - 2012-07-24 16:12 +0200
              Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Henning" <computer_hero@coldmail.com> - 2012-07-24 17:42 +0200
    Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-24 09:16 -0700
      Re: [OT] Windows XP and Vista No Office 2013 for you "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-24 18:24 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#1455

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:28:59 -0300, "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote:
  
>May be, or may be that he saw he had enough money for several generations 
>already and He didn't need to work any more, and as a personal achievement 
>he already reached the goal of putting his Windows in almost every PC in the 
>world, so He decided to do something else.

In 50 years he will be well known for his work with his foundation.
And very little for Microsoft.

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1457

| In 50 years he will be well known for his work with his foundation.
| And very little for Microsoft.
|

  Maybe, but I saw an article recently questioning the
altruism of the Gates Foundation. I didn't feel that there
was enough information to assess the value and veracity
of the article, but it was interesting. The basic proposition
is that the GF is working to get gov't funds into the hands
of corporations more than it's doing philanthropy. If true
it would certainly be in line with the Bill Gates that I've
seen.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1459

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 21:24:49 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
  
>| In 50 years he will be well known for his work with his foundation.
>| And very little for Microsoft.

>  Maybe, but I saw an article recently questioning the
>altruism of the Gates Foundation. I didn't feel that there
>was enough information to assess the value and veracity
>of the article, but it was interesting. The basic proposition
>is that the GF is working to get gov't funds into the hands
>of corporations more than it's doing philanthropy. If true
>it would certainly be in line with the Bill Gates that I've
>seen.
>
>http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html 

That is an opinion piece and not a news article.   It has a lot of
words and phrases which have a high shock value and not a lot of
facts.   That said it may very well have some valid points.  Trouble
is, in some of the links that I opened up, I was presented with multi
page PDF files which would've required a lot more work analyzing than
I really cared about.

Tony

.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1460

| 
 >http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html
|
| That is an opinion piece and not a news article.   It has a lot of
| words and phrases which have a high shock value and not a lot of
| facts.   That said it may very well have some valid points.  Trouble
| is, in some of the links that I opened up, I was presented with multi
| page PDF files which would've required a lot more work analyzing than
| I really cared about.
|

  Yes, that was my sense, too. There's a lot of
equivocal material that's hard to assess. But there
is also some clear information. The link to an open
letter at the GF website clearly spells out an activist
rather than philanthropic role:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/public/media/annualreports/annualreport04/letter/

Funding of education advocacy groups in WA state,
in order to steer education policy, rather than funding
of education itself or education "research":

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015841009_gatesadvocacy07m.html

 (In other words, wouldn't it be much better for GF to fund
think tanks staffed by real teachers interested in education
policy, rather than funding special interest groups?)

  Extensive ties with, and investment in, Monsanto,

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012751169_gatesmonsanto29m.html

a company that is suing farmers worldwide for patent
infringement when their crop gets infected by Monsanto's
poison-addicted GM varieties. The farmers are then faced
with a choice: be sued out of business or switch to buying
Monsanto's sterile seed yearly. *Monsanto is making great
progress in owning nature, even in 3rd-world countries.*

But there is hope, at least in some countries outside the US,
as evidenced by the court case recently in Brazil:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15747

(Interestingly, I saw that story recently in the general news,
but when I just went looking for a link I could only find links
to special-interest sites like the one above.)

  I don't know how this kind of thing compares with other
foundations. Maybe I'm expecting too much virtue simply
because an organization is officially non-profit. But there
are some things that seem clear to me: Bill Gates is subject
to "intelligence vanity", overrating his own insights. He thinks
of himself as "super smart"  and falls into the trap of assuming
that his intelligence applies equally in all endeavors. He
clearly thinks he's so smart that he's justified in imposing
his beliefs on the rest of us. (As evidenced in the above
links.) He's also unambiguously a businessman who ran a
company single-mindedly focussed on money. And he
seems to have a tendency to conflate his interests with
his "insights". I remember when he was very vocal about
his claim that the US needed to allow in a lot more foreign
computer workers (good for MS) if we wanted to stay
competitive.

  No doubt Bill Gates will make history in some way. I don't
think it will be as a Jonas Salk or Mother Theresa. So
maybe the question is, will he be remebered as an arrogant
genius who helped humanity, like Thomas Edison, or as
a clever, entrepreneurial scoundrel like P.T. Barnum?  I don't
know of any way to accurately find out exactly what the
GF is doing for good or for ill, so I'm inclined to keep an open
mind and not just assume that it's definitively good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1461

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:46:32 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
  
>Funding of education advocacy groups in WA state,
>in order to steer education policy, rather than funding
>of education itself or education "research":
>
>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015841009_gatesadvocacy07m.html
>
> (In other words, wouldn't it be much better for GF to fund
>think tanks staffed by real teachers interested in education
>policy, rather than funding special interest groups?)

But maybe teachers are too close to the problem to see solutions.
<smile>  For example 
http://www.fmsinc.com/blog/post/Teacher-Performance-Task-Force-for-Fairfax-County-Public-Schools.aspx

The rest are all interesting points but, quite honestly, I'm not sure
I care enough to debate this issue.    Sometimes I just like poking a
stick in the cage.  <bigger smile>

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1462

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:43:34 -0600, Tony Toews
<ttoews@telusplanet.net> wrote:
  
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:46:32 -0400, "Mayayana"
><mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>  
>>Funding of education advocacy groups in WA state,
>>in order to steer education policy, rather than funding
>>of education itself or education "research":
>>
>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015841009_gatesadvocacy07m.html
>>
>> (In other words, wouldn't it be much better for GF to fund
>>think tanks staffed by real teachers interested in education
>>policy, rather than funding special interest groups?)
>
>But maybe teachers are too close to the problem to see solutions.
><smile>  For example 
>http://www.fmsinc.com/blog/post/Teacher-Performance-Task-Force-for-Fairfax-County-Public-Schools.aspx

BTW I should've pointed out the relevant paragraph.

An alternative paradigm: 'Teachers are the Customer'

"I've now come up with a whole new way to look at teaching.
Essentially, a teacher receives kids from upstream, trains them, and
then passes them off to their next downstream teacher. Looking at it
more like a production line, the teacher is a huge beneficiary and
victim of good and bad teaching, more than anyone else in the system
other than the student. Teachers should be empowered to define
expectations and evaluate their upstream teachers for their
performance. Done properly, this creates a positive feedback loop and
automatically addresses any unique issues within a school. After all,
doesn't every teacher want to grow and deliver the best batch of
students to their colleagues? Looking at it from this perspective, the
teachers I discussed this with all knew exactly which teachers
upstream from them they thought were good or bad overall and for
different types of student personalities. In fact, several said there
were teachers they would want or avoid sending their kids to. Wow,
wouldn't it be great to include the input of downstream teachers in a
teacher's evaluation? Isn't that an important person each teacher is
serving? I felt I made a mental breakthrough."

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1463

| >But maybe teachers are too close to the problem to see solutions.

  Would one say that building engineers, lawyers
and psychologists are "too close to the problem"?
Teachers are education professionals, they're ones
trained to do the job. How can we say that they don't
know enough about their job to do it properly?
If they can't address the issues, who can? Bill Gates?
What does Bill Gates know about education? He has no
training or experience in that field.

| 
 >http://www.fmsinc.com/blog/post/Teacher-Performance-Task-Force-for-Fairfax-County-Public-Schools.aspx
|
| BTW I should've pointed out the relevant paragraph.
|
| An alternative paradigm: 'Teachers are the Customer'
|
| "I've now come up with a whole new way to look at teaching.
| Essentially, a teacher receives kids from upstream, trains them, and
| then passes them off to their next downstream teacher. Looking at it
| more like a production line, the teacher is a huge beneficiary and
| victim of good and bad teaching, more than anyone else in the system
| other than the student. Teachers should be empowered to define
| expectations and evaluate their upstream teachers for their
| performance. Done properly, this creates a positive feedback loop and
| automatically addresses any unique issues within a school. After all,
| doesn't every teacher want to grow and deliver the best batch of
| students to their colleagues? Looking at it from this perspective, the
| teachers I discussed this with all knew exactly which teachers
| upstream from them they thought were good or bad overall and for
| different types of student personalities. In fact, several said there
| were teachers they would want or avoid sending their kids to. Wow,
| wouldn't it be great to include the input of downstream teachers in a
| teacher's evaluation? Isn't that an important person each teacher is
| serving? I felt I made a mental breakthrough."
|

   That's an interesting point. I don't know how much
"upstream" assessments get taken into consideration. But I
think that in general it's important not to fall into a
mechanistic approach. Education is not assembling widgets.
We don't say that a babysitter or aunt is a "customer",
receiving kids from the parent upstream. The whole thing
is more organic than that. Yet so many people are anxious to
find "the magic formula". What qualifications does the president
of a software company (your link) have to cook up his own
simplistic Malcolm Gladwell brainstorm about how education
should work?

  When I see these discussions it seems it's usually coming
from a paradigm of students as raw material, while the view of
teachers has gone from babysitters to assembly line technicians
(which is very insulting to them). But the kids are people. They
need to be raised to be responsible, educated, thinking adults,
not just worker units to be plugged into a booming economy.

   Also missing in most of these discussions is the fact that
teachers need to deal with differences in aptitude, problems
at home, poverty, varying cultures within the same
community, and an epidemic that seldom gets talked
about: spoiled parents raising very spoiled kids who simply
aren't fit for the classroom. Also, a culture that has become
deeply tinged with consumeristic attitude, so that many
parents expect to "get their money's worth" from teachers,
as though the child's education had nothing to do with the
parent's "performance". (The author at your link pays
lip service to that concern, but still says that teachers
must be evaluated based on student grades.)

  Teachers have to be trusted to take on the whole-person
education of the students rather than "teaching to the test".
If they're not trusted then of course they should be let go.
But to hold the teacher responsible for a certain percentage
of students achieving a certain level of rote memorization
is not education at all. Education has to involve human
relationships.

  But getting back to the main point, all I'm suggesting is
that the GF should probably be donating money to further
education, and then leave the job to the professionals,
rather than trying to shape education themselves by funding
advocay groups that conform to Bill Gates's bright ideas. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1458

"Tony Toews" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> escribió en el mensaje 
news:t0e618te8omlct4h3n103kuoh74l1dkjd1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:28:59 -0300, "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote:
>
>>May be, or may be that he saw he had enough money for several generations
>>already and He didn't need to work any more, and as a personal achievement
>>he already reached the goal of putting his Windows in almost every PC in 
>>the
>>world, so He decided to do something else.
>
> In 50 years he will be well known for his work with his foundation.
> And very little for Microsoft.

I don't know much about what he does at his foundation, but I don't think 
so.
Perhaps you know something that I don't know. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1433

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> escribió en el mensaje 
news:jun4l7$bs8$1@dont-email.me...

>> I was thinking today that when Gates was in MS, the things went much 
>> better.
>
> Don't have to think too hard about it.  Just look at this:
>
> http://classicvb.net/images/BallmerCEO.gif

For being just, Ballmer could be not the only cause of that.
They could have reached a limit also. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1434

Eduardo brought next idea :
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> escribió...
>
>>> I was thinking today that when Gates was in MS, the things went much 
>>> better.
>>
>> Don't have to think too hard about it.  Just look at this:
>>
>> http://classicvb.net/images/BallmerCEO.gif
>
> For being just, Ballmer could be not the only cause of that.
> They could have reached a limit also.

So you're suggesting that Gates' most brilliant move was bailing when 
he did? <g>

Ballmer couldn't have done it alone, of course.  He had every kiss-ass 
underling below him cheerleading "bet the company" on dotnet at this 
point, as well.  They took the bet.  And, given that graph, it seems 
they lost!

-- 
.NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1441

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> escribió en el mensaje 
news:junhlu$mct$1@dont-email.me...
> Eduardo brought next idea :
>> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> escribió...
>>
>>>> I was thinking today that when Gates was in MS, the things went much 
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> Don't have to think too hard about it.  Just look at this:
>>>
>>> http://classicvb.net/images/BallmerCEO.gif
>>
>> For being just, Ballmer could be not the only cause of that.
>> They could have reached a limit also.
>
> So you're suggesting that Gates' most brilliant move was bailing when he 
> did? <g>

May be. That's what Mike suggested in other post.

> Ballmer couldn't have done it alone, of course.  He had every kiss-ass 
> underling below him cheerleading "bet the company" on dotnet at this 
> point, as well.  They took the bet.  And, given that graph, it seems they 
> lost!

But Dotnet was on development before 2000...

What we don't know is how Gates would have handled it after the "rejection". 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1442

| But Dotnet was on development before 2000...
|
| What we don't know is how Gates would have handled it after the 
"rejection".
|

   Was .Net really rejected? Didn't they use it successfully
to compete with Java and sell a lot of MS server software?
Wasn't that the original plan, after all?

   The plan to put a .Net wrapper around all of Windows
(Longhorn) and to conflate .Net with Windows software
programming failed. But they keep trying. Metro's basically
the same idea. It's a nearly constant string of attempts
to make more money from their customers by various means
in addition to software fees. From Active Desktop,
through the various .Net-y boondoggles like Hailstorm, Passport
and SPOT watches, to Kin, to the Metro/WinRT plan, MS has
been very consistent. They consistently copy other companies
in hopes of milking more money from their customers. I'd be
very surprised if Bill Gates has not been part of all those plans. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1453

Mayayana wrote:

>| But Dotnet was on development before 2000...
>|
>| What we don't know is how Gates would have handled it after the
>| "rejection".
>
>    Was .Net really rejected? Didn't they use it successfully
> to compete with Java and sell a lot of MS server software?
> Wasn't that the original plan, after all?

The plan was to compete with Java, yes -- but as for how successful it was, 
let's compare the number of machines that have .Net VMs (most Windows 
machines, *nix systems if the owner so chooses (via Mono)) vs the number of 
machines that have Java VMs (freakin' EVERYTHING: desktop computers, cell 
phones, car computers, appliances, etc).

We could also compare the popularity of the programming languages. The TIOBE 
index for this month puts Java at 2nd place, with a rating of 16.087%, 
compared to C# at 5th place with 6.668% and VB.Net at 15th place with 0.917%.

(Interestingly enough, if you look at the long-term trends chart, Java is 
losing popularity while C# is gaining.)

-- 
Show me someone who says "Something must be done!" and I will show
you a head full of vicious intentions that have no other outlet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1437

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> wrote in message 
news:jun4l7$bs8$1@dont-email.me...
>> Eduardo formulated on Tuesday :
>>
>> I was thinking today that when Gates was in MS,
>> the things went much better.
>
> Don't have to think too hard about it.  Just look at this:
>
> http://classicvb.net/images/BallmerCEO.gif


. . . or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc

The man's a crazy deranged idiot surrounded by "Yes men".

Mike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1449

Mike Williams submitted this idea :
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> wrote in message 
> news:jun4l7$bs8$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Eduardo formulated on Tuesday :
>>>
>>> I was thinking today that when Gates was in MS,
>>> the things went much better.
>>
>> Don't have to think too hard about it.  Just look at this:
>>
>> http://classicvb.net/images/BallmerCEO.gif
>
>
> . . . or this
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
>
> The man's a crazy deranged idiot surrounded by "Yes men".

Not this guy! <vbg>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GM4Lt5k24s

-- 
.NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1450

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> wrote in message 
news:jupahs$6jv$1@dont-email.me...
> Mike Williams submitted this idea :
>> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> wrote in message
>>> Don't have to think too hard about it.  Just look at this:
>>>
>>> http://classicvb.net/images/BallmerCEO.gif
>>
>> . . . or this
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
>>
>> The man's a crazy deranged idiot surrounded by "Yes men".
>
> Not this guy! <vbg>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GM4Lt5k24s

Oh, what can I say. Hilarious! That's the best laugh I've had in ages. He's 
definitely not one of the "Yes men"! <vvbg>

Mike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1451

Mike Williams explained :
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> wrote in message 
> news:jupahs$6jv$1@dont-email.me...
>> Mike Williams submitted this idea :
>>> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@exmvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> Don't have to think too hard about it.  Just look at this:
>>>>
>>>> http://classicvb.net/images/BallmerCEO.gif
>>>
>>> . . . or this
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc
>>>
>>> The man's a crazy deranged idiot surrounded by "Yes men".
>>
>> Not this guy! <vbg>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GM4Lt5k24s
>
> Oh, what can I say. Hilarious! That's the best laugh I've had in ages. He's 
> definitely not one of the "Yes men"! <vvbg>

Bing! Bing! Bing! <LOL>

-- 
.NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1428

| > So they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel every two years to sell new
| > licenses, and just focus on what the people really need.
|
| Actually, that's a damned insightful way to look at it.  A subscription
| model /could/ shift their focus away from breaking stuff, towards
| making damned sure it never broke.  Hmmmm...
|

  On the other hand, isn't that essentially what software
assurance is? If they weren't hoping to make more money
by renting software than by selling it, they wouldn't
do it. The main reason SaaS got started in the first place
is because popular software was mature and relatively
cheap, so people diodn't need to keep buying new versions.
That's not a very auspicious start for the idea of rented
software. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1429

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> escribió en el mensaje 
news:junap7$jam$1@dont-email.me...
>| > So they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel every two years to sell new
> | > licenses, and just focus on what the people really need.
> |
> | Actually, that's a damned insightful way to look at it.  A subscription
> | model /could/ shift their focus away from breaking stuff, towards
> | making damned sure it never broke.  Hmmmm...
> |
>
>  On the other hand, isn't that essentially what software
> assurance is? If they weren't hoping to make more money
> by renting software than by selling it, they wouldn't
> do it. The main reason SaaS got started in the first place
> is because popular software was mature and relatively
> cheap, so people diodn't need to keep buying new versions.
> That's not a very auspicious start for the idea of rented
> software. :)

Hummm, what is the idea then?

Developers need to make something for a living, hence software companies 
need to make money.

If software is "mature", and that means that the work is already done, the 
developers then should seek to do something else for a living? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1435

| If software is "mature", and that means that the work is already done, the
| developers then should seek to do something else for a living?
|

  There are new types of programs; improvements;
custom software for in-house business use...

  But things change. People simply have to deal with that.
I once made notable money on shareware. Those days
are gone. Should you have to pay your plumber for a
maintenance contract just because he needs the work? Why
should anyone rent MS Office when they can use their
old Office 2000 or LibreOffice? The constant update fad is
really little more than a SaaS scam. There's no excuse for
software needing so much updating and maintenance.

  Remember the late 90s when PC
magazines would go wild about each 6-month cycle
in CPUs? If one had a 266 MHz and the 350 was available
that was a valuable, noticeable upgrade. (The latest chip was
always "blazingly fast" while the 2nd fastest was demoted
to "good enough for email and web browsing". :)

  It was the same with software. People were waiting for
hardware and software that could do what they needed
done. It was worth buying new periodically. That ended in
the early 2000s. Finally things could happen instantly, and
there's nothing faster than instant. But the hardware and
software companies had become addicted to the upgrade
cycle.

  So companies like MS started talking about SaaS, just at
the time when it was no longer relevant. What should they do
now? I don't know. Just like everyone else, they have to deal
with change. What they *are* doing is pushing SaaS, moving
into interactive TV devices with Metro, and keeping up their
old strategy of producing superfluous bloat and incompatibilities
in order to get people buying new product.

*Microsoft doesn't even do products anymore. They just do
strategies.*

  Personally I think MS should be forced to sell their software
at non-monopoly prices. Why should I feel bad that they might
be faced with making less money? They've been making far
more than they deserve for years. They make so much that they
can afford to blow it on repeated, failed forays into other
businesses.

  There was an interview of Bill Gates by Charlie Rose
recently. (I don't remember whether that's already been talked
about.)
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12436

  I found it very interesting. The way I heard it, Mr. Gates was
saying that the MS Surface is both PC and tablet. It's the future.
PCs are "legacy". It looks to me like the MS leadership are taking
a big step to try and get what Apple has: An addicted, captive
audience that gladly pays lots of money for all sorts of products
that they access through extremely restrictive Apple devices. The
way Bill Gates was talking it didn't sound like he even cared about
the future computer software market. He's seeing dollar signs around
music, games, tablet trinkets, etc. sold through the Microsoft store.

   Thus, Metro on Win8 is a marketing device. No more and
no less. They've taken the bold step of ruining their next Windows
version in hopes of converting Windows customers to what is
essentially Metro OS. I don't doubt that they'd be happy to
leave Windows, and even their SaaS ambitions, behind if they
can cash in on Metro OS devices.
(Not that I think they have much chance of doing that. Steve
Jobs at least tried to figure out what people wanted so that he
could exploit them. Microsoft seems to have a bad habit of only
figuring out what could generate big money, without ever giving
much thought to whether the idea actually makes sense....
Active Desktop and a SPOT watch, anyone?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

csiph-web