Is Microsoft innovative? Dave Winer and I argue it out

December 1, 2006 By

In the Wall Street Journal online: Is Microsoft Innovative?

And while you’re telling me I’m full of it, I’ll be touring London with the “pissed as newts” tour. Meet at 1 p.m. at the Eros statue. Have a good Friday, I won’t be reachable.

Filed Under: 1

http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

MGB: Ajax was NAMED by Adaptive Path, not created by it. The major concept in AJAX was created by Microsoft.

Regarding ClearType. Steve Wozniak’s technique was to display text on a regular computer monitor. ClearType uses color fringing to fool your eye into seeing more information than actually is there. Microsoft owns the patent for that, which, according to American law at least, means that Microsoft owns the invention. There were actually two people who invented the telephone at the same time. The guy we remember is the guy who got to the patent office first (beat #2 there by a few minutes, if I remember the story right).
Stan

MGB said
”
2. OLE is a rip off of an Apple innovation…

http://www.mackido.com/History/History_OLE.html”
—————-

Sorry, MGB, that is complete bull written by a Mac fanboy. Publish and Subscribe had no notion of the “embedding” part of OLE, which is the most used part. Publish and Subscribe also wasn’t built on top of a component model like OLE2 was (COM). Publish and Subscribe was extremely limited compared to OLE. And OLE wasn’t a “rip off” of it anyway. Both were developed at the same time. Publish and Subscribe was released with OS 7. The OLE1 dlls first shipped with a Micrographix app around 1992 (before OLE was shipped as part of Win3.1).

As for OpenDoc, that was a misguided copy of OLE2. One of its failures was that it concentrated to much on “object embedding” (didn’t support linking at all, IIRC), and not the underpinnings. OLE2, on the other hand, introduced the COM underpinnings, on top of which a bunch of stuff was built that had nothing to do with OLE, per se. Apple’s great claim regarding OpenDoc (Amber) was “irregularly shaped and transparent objects”. But OLE already had that by way of using irregularly shaped window’ed OLE controls. But that was clunky, so MS created “windowless” OLE controls. Maybe you can claim that was a “ripoff” of OpenDoc, but that’s about it.

OLE/COM was/is a comprehensive technology. Publishe and Subscribe was a limited “feature” that devs couldn’t find any use for, thus its failure. OpenDoc was also limited in scope compared to OLE, but it had a much greater chance of success than Publish and Subscribe ever had. But the “visionary” Steve Jobs pulled the plug on OpenDoc (the Mac version; IBM and Word Perfect were doing half-hearted Windows versions of OpenDoc, which were a joke).
Stan

MGB said
”
2. OLE is a rip off of an Apple innovation…

http://www.mackido.com/History/History_OLE.html”
—————-

Sorry, MGB, that is complete bull written by a Mac fanboy. Publish and Subscribe had no notion of the “embedding” part of OLE, which is the most used part. Publish and Subscribe also wasn’t built on top of a component model like OLE2 was (COM). Publish and Subscribe was extremely limited compared to OLE. And OLE wasn’t a “rip off” of it anyway. Both were developed at the same time. Publish and Subscribe was released with OS 7. The OLE1 dlls first shipped with a Micrographix app around 1992 (before OLE was shipped as part of Win3.1).

As for OpenDoc, that was a misguided copy of OLE2. One of its failures was that it concentrated to much on “object embedding” (didn’t support linking at all, IIRC), and not the underpinnings. OLE2, on the other hand, introduced the COM underpinnings, on top of which a bunch of stuff was built that had nothing to do with OLE, per se. Apple’s great claim regarding OpenDoc (Amber) was “irregularly shaped and transparent objects”. But OLE already had that by way of using irregularly shaped window’ed OLE controls. But that was clunky, so MS created “windowless” OLE controls. Maybe you can claim that was a “ripoff” of OpenDoc, but that’s about it.

OLE/COM was/is a comprehensive technology. Publishe and Subscribe was a limited “feature” that devs couldn’t find any use for, thus its failure. OpenDoc was also limited in scope compared to OLE, but it had a much greater chance of success than Publish and Subscribe ever had. But the “visionary” Steve Jobs pulled the plug on OpenDoc (the Mac version; IBM and Word Perfect were doing half-hearted Windows versions of OpenDoc, which were a joke).
Stan

MGB, I dealt with your “OLE is a ripoff of Apple” claim. The rest of your list is also little more than slashdot regurgitated mythology.

1. Ajax – EVERYONE who knows of which he speaks, knows that MS created the major component that is the basis of AJAX. Even MS haters admit this.

2. OLE as a rip off – I already addressed that, and it is complet and utter bull.

3. Intellisense – Nothing to say here, because you don’t claim that it’s not an MS innovation. (Whether you happen to like that tech or not is irrelevant. I and many other devs do like it, and it’s not “rotting my mind”.)

4. ClearType – I frequent various tech message boards (slashdot, et al), and have noticed a movement in the last few weeks to take ClearType away from Microsoft as an innovation by citing the old Apple II. First, even if ClearType was copied from Apple II, that nobody else did it for 20 years, means that MS should get credit for bringing it to the modern day. But it’s not a rip off anyway. (See Scoble’s post).

5. Scroll Wheel’ed mice – I’ll trust you on that and concede that point (but MS gets credit for bringing it to the masses).
Stan

MGB, I dealt with your “OLE is a ripoff of Apple” claim. The rest of your list is also little more than slashdot regurgitated mythology.

1. Ajax – EVERYONE who knows of which he speaks, knows that MS created the major component that is the basis of AJAX. Even MS haters admit this.

2. OLE as a rip off – I already addressed that, and it is complet and utter bull.

3. Intellisense – Nothing to say here, because you don’t claim that it’s not an MS innovation. (Whether you happen to like that tech or not is irrelevant. I and many other devs do like it, and it’s not “rotting my mind”.)

4. ClearType – I frequent various tech message boards (slashdot, et al), and have noticed a movement in the last few weeks to take ClearType away from Microsoft as an innovation by citing the old Apple II. First, even if ClearType was copied from Apple II, that nobody else did it for 20 years, means that MS should get credit for bringing it to the modern day. But it’s not a rip off anyway. (See Scoble’s post).

5. Scroll Wheel’ed mice – I’ll trust you on that and concede that point (but MS gets credit for bringing it to the masses).
Stan

Any MS bashers want to belittle XNA after watching the video that I referred to here?
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=261254

Or do you concede the point?
Stan

Any MS bashers want to belittle XNA after watching the video that I referred to here?
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=261254

Or do you concede the point?
LayZ

@79 Yawn
LayZ

@79 Yawn
blogger@wordpress

MGB. Your point about intellisens is BS.

Any modern invention makes things easier and thus take away some skill that was neede before the invention. This is true for intellisense also. If you are blaming intellisense for ‘rotting the programmers’ why stop with that? pretty much everything since sliced bread could be included.

Deigo – @72 (ii)

I agree with your disagreement. It directly doesnt affect innovation. But i am trying to address the ‘meaningful’ aspect of the innovation there. Without commercial viability the innovation will not be sustained.

For inst, if GM launches a commercially viable, widely accepted solar driven automobile would you call it an innovation or not?

I would. Yes, solar cars are nothing new. But to actually use that technology and make something meaningful and ultimately benefitting end users is very much innovative.
blogger@wordpress

MGB. Your point about intellisens is BS.

Any modern invention makes things easier and thus take away some skill that was neede before the invention. This is true for intellisense also. If you are blaming intellisense for ‘rotting the programmers’ why stop with that? pretty much everything since sliced bread could be included.

Deigo – @72 (ii)

I agree with your disagreement. It directly doesnt affect innovation. But i am trying to address the ‘meaningful’ aspect of the innovation there. Without commercial viability the innovation will not be sustained.

For inst, if GM launches a commercially viable, widely accepted solar driven automobile would you call it an innovation or not?

I would. Yes, solar cars are nothing new. But to actually use that technology and make something meaningful and ultimately benefitting end users is very much innovative.
http://arunpillai.net/ Arun Pillai

Microsoft for sure is innovative. Their past and present career growth and products proves it. Moreover to exist in *this* market,with rivals all around,they have no other way…

Lets see how http://live.com shakes the folks whose only used to Googling
http://arunpillai.net Arun Pillai

Microsoft for sure is innovative. Their past and present career growth and products proves it. Moreover to exist in *this* market,with rivals all around,they have no other way…

Lets see how http://live.com shakes the folks whose only used to Googling
MGB

blogger@wordpress:

You said it yourself…

“Any modern invention makes things easier and thus take away some skill that was neede before the invention.”

IMHO, any invention or innovation that “takes away” VITAL skills is a worthless invention. True innovation should only add and/or enhance the users skill set, not take away from it. I do agree with you in that some innovations require that we start doing things differently than we had before. And if that innovation makes my life easier then I will gladly except the change.

However when such an innovation has the potential to cause damage to an entire industry as Charles Petzold argues in his article… then it is time to reconsider the worth of the innovation.

Is Intellisense a Microsoft innovation? Yes, yes absolutely yes. There are MANY MS innovations within Visual Studio, it’s packed with them. Too many to list here in fact. And these features CAN be a great aid to programmers… in the short term.

But are these features good in the long term?

IMHO, not only are they not good, they may deteriorate a programmers skills over prolonged used. A programmer that relies on a tool to in essence and at times literally write his code for him/her and do their thinking for them is a poor programmer.

Visual Studio, as Charles pointed out, literally adds lines of code that are uneccessary. It also violates proper programming guidlines. Visual Studio attempts to generate code FOR US. This is simply terrible.

Is it any wonder why MS’s products are so buggy? Is it any wonder why it took MS so long to get Vista out the door? Not to me.
MGB

blogger@wordpress:

You said it yourself…

“Any modern invention makes things easier and thus take away some skill that was neede before the invention.”

IMHO, any invention or innovation that “takes away” VITAL skills is a worthless invention. True innovation should only add and/or enhance the users skill set, not take away from it. I do agree with you in that some innovations require that we start doing things differently than we had before. And if that innovation makes my life easier then I will gladly except the change.

However when such an innovation has the potential to cause damage to an entire industry as Charles Petzold argues in his article… then it is time to reconsider the worth of the innovation.

Is Intellisense a Microsoft innovation? Yes, yes absolutely yes. There are MANY MS innovations within Visual Studio, it’s packed with them. Too many to list here in fact. And these features CAN be a great aid to programmers… in the short term.

But are these features good in the long term?

IMHO, not only are they not good, they may deteriorate a programmers skills over prolonged used. A programmer that relies on a tool to in essence and at times literally write his code for him/her and do their thinking for them is a poor programmer.

Visual Studio, as Charles pointed out, literally adds lines of code that are uneccessary. It also violates proper programming guidlines. Visual Studio attempts to generate code FOR US. This is simply terrible.

Is it any wonder why MS’s products are so buggy? Is it any wonder why it took MS so long to get Vista out the door? Not to me.
http://orbitchange.com/blog/ Sharad Sharma

I think it is wrong to say that Microsoft was never an innovator. They were not a technology innovator but a business model innovator. It was the business model innovation that demolished IBM on one side and Apple on the other.

Now they have become big and have developed sclerosis around the business model that they invented. They are now vulnerable to newer business models that Google and others are bringing in. And now, as an established company, they can only do continuous incremental innovation.

Some days back I wrote in my post on The War of Innovation Ideologies (http://orbitchange.com/blog/2006/11/09/innovation-ideologies/) that there are three innovation pathways. One of them is the entrepreneur’s garage…

“When there are hundreds or thousands of potential business models that might succeed, the best way to find out which will succeed is to allow each brave or disgruntled genius to try out his own approach. Many fail, but a few will succeed. This is the essence of the Silicon Valley model.”

The other pathway is the Kaizen way of continuous incremental innovation…

“In this model, an established company enters a new field, and makes products. There may be initially some setbacks, but it learns quickly, iterates, and improves efficiency and quality.”

It’s a testament to Microsoft’s success that they are now locked into the Kaizen pathway of innovation. Let’s not forget, despite Silicon Valley’s protestations, this can yield valuable outcomes.
http://orbitchange.com/blog/ Sharad Sharma

I think it is wrong to say that Microsoft was never an innovator. They were not a technology innovator but a business model innovator. It was the business model innovation that demolished IBM on one side and Apple on the other.

Now they have become big and have developed sclerosis around the business model that they invented. They are now vulnerable to newer business models that Google and others are bringing in. And now, as an established company, they can only do continuous incremental innovation.

Some days back I wrote in my post on The War of Innovation Ideologies (http://orbitchange.com/blog/2006/11/09/innovation-ideologies/) that there are three innovation pathways. One of them is the entrepreneur’s garage…

“When there are hundreds or thousands of potential business models that might succeed, the best way to find out which will succeed is to allow each brave or disgruntled genius to try out his own approach. Many fail, but a few will succeed. This is the essence of the Silicon Valley model.”

The other pathway is the Kaizen way of continuous incremental innovation…

“In this model, an established company enters a new field, and makes products. There may be initially some setbacks, but it learns quickly, iterates, and improves efficiency and quality.”

It’s a testament to Microsoft’s success that they are now locked into the Kaizen pathway of innovation. Let’s not forget, despite Silicon Valley’s protestations, this can yield valuable outcomes.
MGB

Robert:

1. I conceed to you that Ajax was named by Adaptive Path not created by it. However I maintain that MS’s innovation around Ajax was it’s Atlas project, not Ajax directly which pre-existed before MS became involved with it.

2. I agree totally with your comments on cleartype and patents. But concerning patents consider this…

Who invented the radio? Most people would say it was Marconi. In actual fact it was Tesla. He owned the patents on the essential technologies involved in making radio work…

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html

So who owns Cleartype? Most people will say Microsoft. But prior art can be found with Wozniak and others. Patents can be overturned, nullified or upheld. Sometimes they can be used or overturned against you just when you thought you owned them.

Patents are in essence a shell game. I’m sure Marconi innovated and improved on Tesla’s work, but in the end… he didn’t own the patents on it, Tesla did. However the law didn’t come to aid Tesla until after he died.
MGB

Robert:

1. I conceed to you that Ajax was named by Adaptive Path not created by it. However I maintain that MS’s innovation around Ajax was it’s Atlas project, not Ajax directly which pre-existed before MS became involved with it.

2. I agree totally with your comments on cleartype and patents. But concerning patents consider this…

Who invented the radio? Most people would say it was Marconi. In actual fact it was Tesla. He owned the patents on the essential technologies involved in making radio work…

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html

So who owns Cleartype? Most people will say Microsoft. But prior art can be found with Wozniak and others. Patents can be overturned, nullified or upheld. Sometimes they can be used or overturned against you just when you thought you owned them.

Patents are in essence a shell game. I’m sure Marconi innovated and improved on Tesla’s work, but in the end… he didn’t own the patents on it, Tesla did. However the law didn’t come to aid Tesla until after he died.
Scott

@ Stan…

Did you actually research these? Here are a few I can dispute off the top of my head…

- On-the-fly spell check in word processors
NeXT had system-wide realtime-spellcheck since 1992. The entire OS. Microsoft added real-time spell-check to Office (and just Office) in 1998. Cocoa apps in Mac OS X, such as Safari, get real-time spell-check for free(including the form I’m typing in right now). .NET apps in Windows won’t have real-time application-based spellcheck until .NET 3.0, which is scheduled to be released with Windows Vista.

- Wizards
This is an innovation? Wizards are a poor substitute for usable UIs.

- Bob
So we’re counting failed innovations now?

- Taskbar
NeXT Step shipped in 1988 with a taskbar / Dock.

- Lots of small innovations in .NET that when combined equal large cumulative innovation.
So why didn’t Microsoft build Vista on top of WinFX? instead of Win32?

- ActiveX
Good Idea. Horrible implementation. You can thank ActiveX for at least 70% of the zombie, spam sending Windows systems out there.

- Singularity
What about Hurd and every other experimental OS out there?

- Combining the Back and Forward history buttons into one navigation stack control in IE7
Safari has had a single forward / back UI component since 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Safari_Web_Browser.png

- Browser runs in a sandbox (IE7 on Vista)
Sorry, but this is a hack to fix security design flaws of Active X, not an innovation.

- First browser with anti-phishing tech
Also part of Firefox 2.0
Scott

@ Stan…

Did you actually research these? Here are a few I can dispute off the top of my head…

- On-the-fly spell check in word processors
NeXT had system-wide realtime-spellcheck since 1992. The entire OS. Microsoft added real-time spell-check to Office (and just Office) in 1998. Cocoa apps in Mac OS X, such as Safari, get real-time spell-check for free(including the form I’m typing in right now). .NET apps in Windows won’t have real-time application-based spellcheck until .NET 3.0, which is scheduled to be released with Windows Vista.

- Wizards
This is an innovation? Wizards are a poor substitute for usable UIs.

- Bob
So we’re counting failed innovations now?

- Taskbar
NeXT Step shipped in 1988 with a taskbar / Dock.

- Lots of small innovations in .NET that when combined equal large cumulative innovation.
So why didn’t Microsoft build Vista on top of WinFX? instead of Win32?

- ActiveX
Good Idea. Horrible implementation. You can thank ActiveX for at least 70% of the zombie, spam sending Windows systems out there.

- Singularity
What about Hurd and every other experimental OS out there?

- Combining the Back and Forward history buttons into one navigation stack control in IE7
Safari has had a single forward / back UI component since 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Safari_Web_Browser.png

- Browser runs in a sandbox (IE7 on Vista)
Sorry, but this is a hack to fix security design flaws of Active X, not an innovation.

- First browser with anti-phishing tech
Also part of Firefox 2.0
Peter

Didn’t Microsoft extend the copy/paste paradigm to file management, so that copy/paste can be used to copy files and cut/paste can be used to move them? Were they not also the first to allow file management within File-Open and File-Save dialogs?

I know they had both of the above before Apple.
Peter

Didn’t Microsoft extend the copy/paste paradigm to file management, so that copy/paste can be used to copy files and cut/paste can be used to move them? Were they not also the first to allow file management within File-Open and File-Save dialogs?

I know they had both of the above before Apple.
Peter

@80
LayZ, if Apple or some OSS outfit had something to compare with that XNA video (that’s incidentally making its way around the video game message boards that I visit), you would have immediately splooged all over your monitor. lol You’re the first person I’ve seen to even feign apathy towards it.
Peter

@80
LayZ, if Apple or some OSS outfit had something to compare with that XNA video (that’s incidentally making its way around the video game message boards that I visit), you would have immediately splooged all over your monitor. lol You’re the first person I’ve seen to even feign apathy towards it.
TAG

* Vista’s ability to allow the user to increase RAM simply by plugging in a USB 2.0 flash drive

It was possible to put swap files on USB (and any other) disks long time ago at Linux. Even more – it’s possible to both turn-on / turn-off paging on the fly – Windows can only add more swap – return back was only after reboot.
Tim

*79

Saw them put in a breakpoint and look at variable values, this has been done for more than 20 years. Didn’t see them edit the running code in the debugger. Probably didn’t have an opportunity to do this.

xna looks interesting. Wonder if someone will use this to put linux on the xbox. How will mono work with this?
TAG

* Vista’s ability to allow the user to increase RAM simply by plugging in a USB 2.0 flash drive

It was possible to put swap files on USB (and any other) disks long time ago at Linux. Even more – it’s possible to both turn-on / turn-off paging on the fly – Windows can only add more swap – return back was only after reboot.
Tim

*79

Saw them put in a breakpoint and look at variable values, this has been done for more than 20 years. Didn’t see them edit the running code in the debugger. Probably didn’t have an opportunity to do this.

xna looks interesting. Wonder if someone will use this to put linux on the xbox. How will mono work with this?
MGB

*79

Posting my thoughts as I watch the video…

1. doesn’t work with wireless? Bummer.

2. Cool the Xbox 360 works with 1080!

3. What’s with all those lines on the screen? ugh.

4. Jaggies!

5. Now that the game is running full out, I like it very much! Isn’t as cool as Project Gotham 3 though. PG3 seems to run faster and smoother.

6. Managed Code is bloatware with garbage collection.

7. OK, OK now I get this, XNA basically exists for one reason… to let you move your code from your Windows Visual Studio PC straight to your Xbox… AND NO WHERE ELSE! In other words it’s another way of locking in developers to the Xbox 360.

More vendor Lock in. No thank you.
MGB

*79

Posting my thoughts as I watch the video…

1. doesn’t work with wireless? Bummer.

2. Cool the Xbox 360 works with 1080!

3. What’s with all those lines on the screen? ugh.

4. Jaggies!

5. Now that the game is running full out, I like it very much! Isn’t as cool as Project Gotham 3 though. PG3 seems to run faster and smoother.

6. Managed Code is bloatware with garbage collection.

7. OK, OK now I get this, XNA basically exists for one reason… to let you move your code from your Windows Visual Studio PC straight to your Xbox… AND NO WHERE ELSE! In other words it’s another way of locking in developers to the Xbox 360.

More vendor Lock in. No thank you.
MGB

*79

I’m having an off day today because it took me too long to figure this out. it just hit me why it doesn’t work with wireless.

If it worked with wireless you could send it to ANY device including a competitors device.

That’s more proof of lock in. IMHO. Sneaky Microsoft strikes again. Lol!
MGB

*79

I’m having an off day today because it took me too long to figure this out. it just hit me why it doesn’t work with wireless.

If it worked with wireless you could send it to ANY device including a competitors device.

That’s more proof of lock in. IMHO. Sneaky Microsoft strikes again. Lol!
blogger@wordpress

MGB – The title of the post is ‘Is Microsoft Innovative’, not ‘How useful do you consider microsoft’s products to be?’
blogger@wordpress

MGB – The title of the post is ‘Is Microsoft Innovative’, not ‘How useful do you consider microsoft’s products to be?’
MGB

*93

Actually innovation most typically relates to the customer directly and sometimes exclusively in the form of usefulness. Just how useful does the customer find the innovations to be?

The customer ultimately purchases from the company that offers the most usefulness.

When you ask the question “Is Microsoft innovative” well, that’s a competive question that at once …

1. invites an examination of Microsoft’s past, present and future potential level for innovation.

2. invites a direct comparison of Microsoft’s innovations to other competitor companies.

3. demands a cross section of opinion from past, present and even former customers of their opinions on MS’s innovations.

Everyone can benefit from these questions and examinations. Microsoft especially. Let it be understood, an examination of innovation is totaly meaningless unless one considers the usefullness of said innovation to the end customer.

That’s not only common sense, that’s basic business 101.
MGB

*93

Actually innovation most typically relates to the customer directly and sometimes exclusively in the form of usefulness. Just how useful does the customer find the innovations to be?

The customer ultimately purchases from the company that offers the most usefulness.

When you ask the question “Is Microsoft innovative” well, that’s a competive question that at once …

1. invites an examination of Microsoft’s past, present and future potential level for innovation.

2. invites a direct comparison of Microsoft’s innovations to other competitor companies.

3. demands a cross section of opinion from past, present and even former customers of their opinions on MS’s innovations.

Everyone can benefit from these questions and examinations. Microsoft especially. Let it be understood, an examination of innovation is totaly meaningless unless one considers the usefullness of said innovation to the end customer.

That’s not only common sense, that’s basic business 101.
Jesse

I just read something at the Microsoft’s XNA blog that seems appropo.
Check out the December 3, 2006 entry at the XNA blog, entitled “XNA Game Studio Express and the DEMMX Awards”

http://blogs.msdn.com/xna/archive/2006/12/03/xna-game-studio-express-and-the-demmx-awards.aspx

Turns out that Microsoft’s XNA won two categories at last week’s DEMMX Awards
http://www.demmx.com/demmx/awards/2006.jsp:
* Game Innovation of the Year
* Best of Show: Innovator of the Year

Do you see a common word in both of those awards? You got it, “innovation/innovator”. Case closed.
Jesse

I just read something at the Microsoft’s XNA blog that seems appropo.
Check out the December 3, 2006 entry at the XNA blog, entitled “XNA Game Studio Express and the DEMMX Awards”

http://blogs.msdn.com/xna/archive/2006/12/03/xna-game-studio-express-and-the-demmx-awards.aspx

Turns out that Microsoft’s XNA won two categories at last week’s DEMMX Awards
http://www.demmx.com/demmx/awards/2006.jsp:
* Game Innovation of the Year
* Best of Show: Innovator of the Year

Do you see a common word in both of those awards? You got it, “innovation/innovator”. Case closed.
Stan

I’m not sure why MS bashers are so desperate to dispute MS’s innovations. It’s not like open source has done anything innovative.
Stan

I’m not sure why MS bashers are so desperate to dispute MS’s innovations. It’s not like open source has done anything innovative.
Stan

@90
Tim, setting a break point isn’t the whole of XNA. You have to look at the whole of what’s being provided, as well as how it’s being provided.

BTW, the DEMMX awards were held last week, and Microsoft picked up two awards for their XNA work, both for “innovation”.

http://www.demmx.com/demmx/awards/2006.jsp

1. Best of Show – Innovator of the Year:
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)

2. Games – Game Innovation of the Year:
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)
Stan

@90
Tim, setting a break point isn’t the whole of XNA. You have to look at the whole of what’s being provided, as well as how it’s being provided.

BTW, the DEMMX awards were held last week, and Microsoft picked up two awards for their XNA work, both for “innovation”.

http://www.demmx.com/demmx/awards/2006.jsp

1. Best of Show – Innovator of the Year:
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)

2. Games – Game Innovation of the Year:
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)
MGB

*95

As a quote “MS basher” unquote, l have a few things to say…

1. Concerning open source:

Opensource has always been highly innovative, in fact the entire computing industry first started in the early days as open source. The software at first was all free. I suggest you go read Stephen Levy’s book “Hackers” for a start, you WILL learn something son.

2. Concerning Microsoft:

Microsoft is a VERY innovative company. I have no problem with their innovations and I give them full credit for their innovative work. I give them hell for it at times, but they do innovate.

But right now what I really REALLY need more than anything else is a secure system.

XNA, cleartype etc may be wonderful to work with but it means bugger all NOTHING if my system spends most of it’s useful time fighting off security woes like marware, malware, trojans and viruses and the like.

It’s the 21st freaking century. The computer revolution is decades old. Linux, OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BeOS etc… NONE of these system suffer from the awesome security problems that Windows does. That’s why guys like Dave Winer abandoned Windows as a viable platform. That’s also why guys like Chris Pirillo complain about inconsistencies in the UI. OS X doesn’t suffer from the UI glitches that Windows does.

(Catch Chris Pirillo’s podcast inteview with Ed Bott on Vista beta 2, it’s extremely harsh and well deserved criticism.)

The gross incompetence at Microsoft is staggering to the imagination!

The problem isn’t whether Microsoft can innovate or not. The problem is that Microsoft is too freaking big, their fingers are in too many pies and they have finally become what they both hated and envied most…. IBM. A pathetically sluggish lumbering company far too large to act quickly in a lightning fast moving industry.

Microsoft’s innovations, as wonderful as they are, are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT if they can’t even deliver a simple basic system with solid security and a solid UI.

And WORST of all is if we, the poweruser crowd, can’t even offer simple and well DESERVED constructive criticism of these horrific flaws without being called childish names like “macfan boys” and “MS Bashers” then we are clearly wasting our time.

I’m a hardcore poweruser, my needs are more. I’ll always want more, I’ll always want the best! Who ever delivers the best, gets my cash. Right now IMHO it’s Apple.

As far as I am concerned, Microsoft is running dead last in a five man race. I’d love to see them catch up, I’d even love to see them win. Seriously I would! But as things stand now, they are losing. And I just can’t invest my future with losers.

Sorry, that’s just hard reality. I intend no malice towards Microsoft, I’m just being practical.

C’est la vie.
MGB

*95

As a quote “MS basher” unquote, l have a few things to say…

1. Concerning open source:

Opensource has always been highly innovative, in fact the entire computing industry first started in the early days as open source. The software at first was all free. I suggest you go read Stephen Levy’s book “Hackers” for a start, you WILL learn something son.

2. Concerning Microsoft:

Microsoft is a VERY innovative company. I have no problem with their innovations and I give them full credit for their innovative work. I give them hell for it at times, but they do innovate.

But right now what I really REALLY need more than anything else is a secure system.

XNA, cleartype etc may be wonderful to work with but it means bugger all NOTHING if my system spends most of it’s useful time fighting off security woes like marware, malware, trojans and viruses and the like.

It’s the 21st freaking century. The computer revolution is decades old. Linux, OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BeOS etc… NONE of these system suffer from the awesome security problems that Windows does. That’s why guys like Dave Winer abandoned Windows as a viable platform. That’s also why guys like Chris Pirillo complain about inconsistencies in the UI. OS X doesn’t suffer from the UI glitches that Windows does.

(Catch Chris Pirillo’s podcast inteview with Ed Bott on Vista beta 2, it’s extremely harsh and well deserved criticism.)

The gross incompetence at Microsoft is staggering to the imagination!

The problem isn’t whether Microsoft can innovate or not. The problem is that Microsoft is too freaking big, their fingers are in too many pies and they have finally become what they both hated and envied most…. IBM. A pathetically sluggish lumbering company far too large to act quickly in a lightning fast moving industry.

Microsoft’s innovations, as wonderful as they are, are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT if they can’t even deliver a simple basic system with solid security and a solid UI.

And WORST of all is if we, the poweruser crowd, can’t even offer simple and well DESERVED constructive criticism of these horrific flaws without being called childish names like “macfan boys” and “MS Bashers” then we are clearly wasting our time.

I’m a hardcore poweruser, my needs are more. I’ll always want more, I’ll always want the best! Who ever delivers the best, gets my cash. Right now IMHO it’s Apple.

As far as I am concerned, Microsoft is running dead last in a five man race. I’d love to see them catch up, I’d even love to see them win. Seriously I would! But as things stand now, they are losing. And I just can’t invest my future with losers.

Sorry, that’s just hard reality. I intend no malice towards Microsoft, I’m just being practical.

C’est la vie.
Stan

The DEMMX awards were held last week, and Microsoft picked up two awards for their XNA work, both for “innovation”.

Best of Show – Innovator of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)

Games – Game Innovation of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)
Stan

The DEMMX awards were held last week, and Microsoft picked up two awards for their XNA work, both for “innovation”.

Best of Show – Innovator of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)

Games – Game Innovation of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)
Stanley

For some reason my posts are showing, but I’ll try one more time.

Microsoft picked up two awards for their XNA work, both for “innovation”.

http://www.demmx.com/demmx/awards/2006.jsp

Best of Show – Innovator of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)

Games – Game Innovation of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)
Stanley

For some reason my posts are showing, but I’ll try one more time.

Microsoft picked up two awards for their XNA work, both for “innovation”.

http://www.demmx.com/demmx/awards/2006.jsp

Best of Show – Innovator of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)

Games – Game Innovation of the Year -
Microsoft XNA Game Studio Express (Microsoft Corporation)
Diego

“I’m not sure why MS bashers are so desperate to dispute MS’s innovations. It’s not like open source has done anything innovative.”

I was not bashing Microsoft innovations. Just disputing those that were attributed to Microsoft when they clearly should not be.

Is Microsoft innovative? Dave Winer and I argue it out

Archives

About Robert