Rossj

Apr 07, 2007 at 1:47 AM

Eh?

Well, Paul Graham thinks so..

Paul Graham wrote:

A few days ago I suddenly realized Microsoft was dead. I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized he didn't understand.

Dead is probably taking it a little too far, comatose might fit his essay much better - that is *if* you agree with what he is saying.

This particular article aside, he does have some other interesting essays that are worth reading.
littleguru <3 Seattle

Apr 07, 2007 at 2:54 AM

Don't know..

Offtopic: is this your easter avatar?
bart7simpson7 0xCAFEBABE

Apr 07, 2007 at 7:12 AM

littleguru wrote:

Don't know..

Offtopic: is this your easter avatar?

This is a good Easter avatar ?
littleguru <3 Seattle

Apr 07, 2007 at 7:15 AM

bart7simpson7 wrote:

littleguru wrote:
Don't know..

Offtopic: is this your easter avatar?

This is a good Easter avatar ?

Sweet
W3bbo Work hard; increase production; prevent accidents, and be happy.

Apr 07, 2007 at 7:22 AM

bart7simpson7 wrote:

littleguru wrote:
Don't know..

Offtopic: is this your easter avatar?

This is a good Easter avatar ?

It says "Easter Egg" on it, couldn't it be something more imaginative or subtle?
Ping Je pense, donc je suis!

Apr 07, 2007 at 9:18 AM

bart7simpson7 wrote:

littleguru wrote:
Don't know..

Offtopic: is this your easter avatar?

This is a good Easter avatar ?

so this is 101bytes?
z2bass AH!

Apr 07, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Hmmmm.... easter eggs in Channel 9... I thought they banned those at microsoft
DigitalDud

Apr 07, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Who the hell is Paul Graham?
Charles Welcome Change

Apr 07, 2007 at 11:43 AM

DigitalDud wrote:

Who the hell is Paul Graham?

Really good question.

From the article:

Paul Graham wrote:

I never used Microsoft software, so it only affected me indirectly—for example, in the spam I got from botnets.

Seems like he's your usual anti-MS type to me...

Microsoft is very much alive a well. We're a little out of shape, but far from dying...

C
Rossj

Apr 07, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Charles wrote:

DigitalDud wrote:Who the hell is Paul Graham?

Really good question.

He came up with the idea of using bayesian spam filters, and wrote a lot on LISP. Apparently, before he sold his company to Yahoo I think and now works for the Yahoo startup incubator. Also has a PhD from Harvard, which I thought had a pretty good reputation - doesn't it?

Personally I think he makes one or two good points, Microsoft isn't the scarey monster that it used to be (this is a good thing) and it does seem to be struggling to keep up with others *in some markets*.

I would have thought it unwise to write him off as another Microsoft-hater without at leasting considering his ideas on their merits (or not).
Andrew Davey www.aboutcode.net

Apr 07, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Um, well he does work with Jessica Livingston (http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=296058 )
Charles Welcome Change

Apr 07, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Rossj wrote:

Charles wrote:

DigitalDud wrote: Who the hell is Paul Graham?

Really good question.

He came up with the idea of using bayesian spam filters, and wrote a lot on LISP. Apparently, before he sold his company to Yahoo I think and now works for the Yahoo startup incubator. Also has a PhD from Harvard, which I thought had a pretty good reputation - doesn't it?

Personally I think he makes one or two good points, Microsoft isn't the scarey monster that it used to be (this is a good thing) and it does seem to be struggling to keep up with others *in some markets*.

I would have thought it unwise to write him off as another Microsoft-hater without at leasting considering his ideas on their merits (or not).

My point is that it doesn't help his argument to state that he never uses our software, but at the same time he knows how much it "sucks". I don't care about his academic credentials. It's his weak argument and the way he prefaces it that leads me to wonder about his intentions...

Specifically, I believe we are still very much a threat to our competitors and this is a very good thing since it means we are still very much a competitive company.
Rossj

Apr 07, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Charles wrote:

My point is that it doesn't help his argument to state that he never uses our software, but at the same time he knows how much it "sucks".

Can you point me to the bit where he says that software from Microsoft 'sucks' because I just can't read it - it looks like you are inserting text into his essay Charles. He even makes suggestions for improvement later on ... Like I said - far too easy to assume you know what he is going to say and therefore not read it because of the title.

Charles wrote:

Specifically, I believe we are still very much a threat to our competitors and this is a very good thing since it means we are still very much a competitive company.

Like I said, some markets. Microsoft can't keep up with Google for instance, who only cover (advertising and search) a very small percentage of the markets that Microsoft are involved in. Microsoft is romping all over Sony at the moment though (and congratulations).
Charles Welcome Change

Apr 07, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Rossj wrote:

Charles wrote:
My point is that it doesn't help his argument to state that he never uses our software, but at the same time he knows how much it "sucks".

Can you point me to the bit where he says that software from Microsoft 'sucks' because I just can't read it - it looks like you are inserting text into his essay Charles. He even makes suggestions for improvement later on ... Like I said - far too easy to assume you know what he is going to say and therefore not read it because of the title.

No. I read the article... At any rate, this is pretty easy to interpret:

Paul Graham wrote:

Microsoft's biggest weakness is that they still don't realize how much they suck. They still think they can write software in house. Maybe they can, by the standards of the desktop world. But that world ended a few years ago.

Apr 07, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Charles wrote:

No. I read the article... At any rate, this is pretty easy to interpret:

Paul Graham wrote:
Microsoft's biggest weakness is that they still don't realize how much they suck. They still think they can write software in house. Maybe they can, by the standards of the desktop world. But that world ended a few years ago.

Heh, you read it better than me then - I read that as a general criticism of Microsoft rather than slamming the standard of the code - but yes, much clearer without surrounding fluff Smiley

I must have blanked the unnecessary criticism although it is something I've heard from other people recently (that Microsoft can't ship unless they bought an existing product).

littleguru <3 Seattle

Apr 07, 2007 at 12:45 PM

I have read the essay right now. I have also read the end where he is saying that half will say he is wrong and the other half will agree with him. Well doesn't that already imply that he is somehow wrong, if half is not his opinion?

I really wonder how this Web 2.0 (bubble) is going to end or turn out in a few years. It's an exciting thing, but that was the .COM boom too. And everybody knows how that ended (and I was to young to start a silly startup then - would be rich now, crap ).

What I have seen also is that most stuff that is Web 2.0 couldn't have been realized (or not in the same way) with the traditional desktop. Twittervision for example. Who would ever download such an application? Surfing to the web site and view it is easy and a lot are, because it's easy. But that doesn't imply that the Web works for everything. I can't also see how http://snipshot.com/ replaces Photoshop - sorry. They have some nice ideas, but I wonder if a full blown Photoshop with extension can be esily coded in JavaScript only.

AJAX somehow sucks (as it is right now). It still needs quite some improvement. I mean you can do a lot with it, but it still doesn't feel real. It feels new and exciting, but not real. And with all the AJAX apps on the web it is somehow loosing its new and exciting factor. It's becoming standard and I wonder how people thinks about it after this "new and exciting" thing is over!

The writer is right that Microsoft needs to do something to come back (what I didn't understand is what he actually wants? he seems to want a evil microsoft back...).

Then he is mentioning Apple. What has Apple to do with the Web 2.0? I haven't seen cool AJAX enabled communities coming from them. I see also quite a few people using MacBooks at university. But with Vista I have also seen quite a few people bringing their new Vista desktop to the lectures or exercises. And how long did it take them to make the iPod a success? Since 2001, right? That's quite some time (remember .NET 1.0 was launched in 2002)...

Let time decide.
brian.shapiro things go on as always

Apr 07, 2007 at 1:00 PM

littleguru,

there are several aspects of this, first is whether people really want to give up the advantages of rich desktop applications, but the second is whether people really want to be forced onto an internet connection just to use their software or even just to access their files (people like scoble have suggested that consumers wont care about hard drives in the future)

i would guess if this were to ever work out , people would have the option to download the web application.. but ok, then it will look more something like .NET than AJAX, and it strengthens the need for a desktop framework and doesn't mean the death of microsoft.

and frankly i think even making every single aspect of the internet driven through the web is a dead end we're approaching now. i think new technologies are allowing for different types of desktop client apps that work together.
littleguru <3 Seattle

Apr 07, 2007 at 1:12 PM

brian.shapiro wrote:

littleguru,

there are several aspects of this, first is whether people really want to give up the advantages of rich desktop applications, but the second is whether people really want to be forced onto an internet connection just to use their software or even just to access their files (people like scoble have suggested that consumers wont care about hard drives in the future)

He seems to quote the old NCs. What an innovation They were around since ever (at least for me). I'm sure Scoble heard about them... and how they failed. OK now we have better internet connections etc. But Scoble is right on some point. Most don't care about HDDs anyway: they are so big and you can store everything you want

brian.shapiro wrote:

i would guess if this were to ever work out , people would have the option to download the web application.. but ok, then it will look more something like .NET than AJAX, and it strengthens the need for a desktop framework and doesn't mean the death of microsoft.

Does it only look to me that XAML and WPF are going into that direction?

If the Web 2.0 is really going to happen, we are going to see something that is different than HTTP and Javascript. I'm only waiting for that. Something that is more powerful, and hasn't the disadvantages of the two protocols...

XAML, XUL, XBAP, WPF/E, <pick something else>

Thread Closed

This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.

Easter Controversy: Microsoft is dead.

Thread Closed