One thing Microsoft does WAY better than Google: Research

Kevin Schoefield says that they wrote 3700 papers… and someone else mentions how Microsoft misses the boat as did Xerox PARC.

I have two question to Kevin: How many papers were published by Xerox in the 70s and 80s when they did their ground breaking work? How many ground breaking ideas have been published by MSR scientists while working at MSR? (Sorry Gray, Hoare and others who did their ground breaking work before MSR dont count). I can maybe think of one but it is still a bit to early to judge.

Qantity does not make up quality…

Yup, forgot that XBox Live was using F#. Thanks for the catch.

I also forgot the news of this week — the announcement of “Response Point” which was incubated in MSR. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/mar07/03-19MSResponsePointPR.mspx

As to Alex’s question: there are several that we can identify now. Keeping in mind that most truly “groundbreaking” technologies take 10+ years before they’re recognized as such, I’m sure that there are more that we haven’t identified as such yet.

But some examples:
- the foundations of image based rendering, by Hughes Hoppe
- hardware support for graphics processing (aka “Talisman”) by Jim Kajiya, Turner Whitted et al
- ClearType (read the papers and the patent application before you judge; there’s much more to this than is generally admitted) by John Platt
- source code analysis, modeling and verification, by Jim Larus, Sriram Rajamani, and several others
- public area wireless networks by Victor Bahl
- support vector machines for spam filtering, by John Platt and David Heckerman
- applying spam filtering algorithms to designing an HIV vaccine, by Heckerman and Jojic
- functional programming language work by Luca Cardelli and Simon Peyton-Jones
- performance optimizing a program by re-arranging its code and data segments based upon empirical observation, but Amitabh Srivastava et al.
- 3-D information visualization papers by George Robertson
- Mary Czerwinski’s papers on understanding differences in spatial abilities between men and women
- Cerwinski’s papers on measuring productivity improvements from wide-screen displays
- Yuri Gurevich’s work on applying abstract state machines to the specification process
- Anoop Gupta’s work on the “sidebar” and design considerations for peripheral displays
- Yi-Min Wang’s Strider work on system security and cybersecurity, the dangers of undetectable rootkits using virtualization, and most recently “following the money” to understand the double-funnel ecosystm behind Web spam
- Photorealistic fabric and water rendering from Baining Guo et al.

There, that’s a good start.

To be clear, I should add that I certainly don’t think MSR has a perfect record of tech transfer. Everyone at MSR wants to do more tech transfer, and we sometimes get frustrated when we can’t make it work or it takes too damn long. But then I step back and realize that we’re far better at this than any other industrial research lab, as near as I can tell, and I feel a little bit better.

Kevin – You list a lot of interesting technologies, and I dont mean to imply that these are not interesting or that they are trivial, not by any means! but I do know a few areas you list, and I can only say that these are not in the same league as world class ground breaking things you expect from a rsearch lab. e.g. the code rearrangement research predates what was done by Srivastava et. al. From the published description I can only say that it is an important tweak to the existing state of the art, but not a fundamental leap. It was widespread practice befoe Srivastava (ATOM) came to MSR and he did some of the ground breaking before MSR. Not a fundamental contribution from MSR! Maybe you guys tech tranafered it effectively but that is not a research contribution.

The functional language work you describe was primarily done before the people you list joined MSR (Haskell 89?), so sorry that is not a contribution of MSR by any stretch (they made their name in this field in 1980s)… These are 2 things I know about
Jim Gray got his Turing award after he joined MSR but he did the work long before that…

My impression is that MSR hires famous people, but that is not the same as work nurtured by MSR that became famous. You hire them because they are famous, not because they do work that makes MSR famous, at least based on my field of expertise. It is possible that the other things you mention are different… tell me if I am wrong.

Peace!
A.

Looks like I hit a nerve.
I’ve never seen you so defensive so as to have to resort to listing articles where you didn’t equate Microsoft with fecal matter.

No you misrepresented me. There’s a difference. So rather than trying to argue with a closed mind, I presented evidence. Of course, had you bothered to look, you’d have found it yourself. But being lazy makes it harder for you to misrepresent my work. If you’d looked at various mailing list archives, you’d have seen where I’ve repeatedly said that AD is a *far* better directory service, and its admin tools well above anything Apple has. But again, that would make it harder for you to be a prat.

I saw a link to a “Mac OSX vs Vista” article, clicked on it, saw that you were the offer and didn’t bother to read it because you have zero credibility regarding Microsoft (and zero regarding Apple, it’s just the opposite result).

That’s funny, I’ve talked about my qualifications in many places. What are yours? I’ll put my qualifications to comment about Apple and Microsoft tech implementations at the network and desktop level against yours any day. Please, feel free to list them.

It’s too bad you didn’t read the whole article, because you missed the last part where I said:

… Even so, I think it must be said that Vista is indeed an improvement on Windows XP. Honestly, I think that’s the only metric that really counts when you think about it: Is Vista better enough than XP to be worth the upgrade? I’ll say yes. This may be more of a comment on how bad XP really is more than how good Vista is.

See, how good Vista is compared to Mac OS X is immaterial. The real question is if Vista is a clear improvement on *XP*, and it is definitely that.

But again, why bother researching?

The fact is, you spewed your anti-MS bilge without even looking into the research that Scoble posted about!! Let that sink in. Ponder it. And come to the realization of how screwed up you really are.

Oooh, amateur psychology. Yay! The true sign that you only wanted to fuss at me, and now are all hurty that I didn’t play your game. Now you try to make opinions and ideas formed by around twenty years of dealing with Microsoft products on a professional level as an administrator be all about a personality defect. Besides, how do you know if I watched or not? Again, the point of my comment wasn’t that MSR doesn’t do cool research. It was that by the time the product gets out of MSR to the consumer, it’s been so thoroughly “beiged” that it’s as exciting as watching dry paint. But again, why bother reading what I wrote, when all you really cared about was a nice game of ad hominem, and a poorly played one at that.

You’re not very good at this whole “ragging on people thing”. I recommend you start with an easier target. I’m sure there’s a pre-school near you, and if you ask nice, the kids will take it easy on you.

Research is great, but people need to see the fruits of that research in tangible ways that the average consumer can see and enjoy.

It’s not that Microsoft never lets anything out of R&D. It’s just that by the time it runs the gauntlet of committees and consensus, all the life has been sucked out of it. That video about what Microsoft would do if they packaged the iPod? That’s both true and quite sad.

John C
You had me worried for a minute, but you came through @ 32.
Don’t you hate when you can’t even get a good argument?

Guy

Is Podtech working on a video permalinks feature like Google has with their video? That would be good to be able to link the timestamps to in your posts, Robert.

Food for thought, if not.

The funny thing about all the people poo-pooing MSR is that they can’t point to any other software related company thats doing great research. It’s all well and good to laugh at Kevins list, but at least point out a company doing better research.

John C Welch

You claim that your articles regarding Microsoft and Apple resemble something like “objective analysis”. Well think on this:

My aquaintance with your “work” mainly consists of mostly your rants on Scoble’s blog. Indeed, I’d never heard of you until I read your constant Microsoft-bashing on this blog (sorry to bust your ego). And on this blog, you do indeed give the impression of being a rabid anti-Microsoft, Jobs-worshipping fanboy, that spouts big words in the attempt to show off psuedo-knowledge (an affliction shared by many tech bloggers, BTW). This leads me to dismiss your articles without bothering to read them, such as the “Mac OS X vs Vista” article. You can bet that your behavior on this blog has diminished your credibility with others as well. I’ve been to other message boards where many do dismiss you as an Apple-fanboy and Microsoft-hater, mostly based on your rantings here.

So, it would behoove you not to constantly spout anti-MS rhetoric on this blog if you want people to put credence into your articles.

Again, you bashed Microsoft on this topic without even watching Scoble’s videos. And it’s not like you added anything new, it was just the same garbage that you spout on this blog each and every week, and at least 4 times each week. Since you brought nothing new to the table and didn’t watch the videos, why did you even post a comment for this blog entry anyway? You have a compulsion regarding Microsoft, where you just can’t help yourself from regurgitating bile.

Oh, and if you don’t want to clean up your act for the sake of restoring credibility of your “articles”, then at least get some new material so that you don’t sound like a broken record.

John C Welch,

You cited “That video about what Microsoft would do if they packaged the iPod? That’s both true and quite sad.”

That video was made by Microsoft themselves, and was shown prompt product divisions to use better packaging. You can’t point to a Microsoft package like the one in that video since that video was released, so it’s not “true” and “sad”, it’s “past”.

But again, you’re too biased against Microsoft to give credit for any improvement at all. Indeed, you don’t *want* to see any improvement because you’d rather bash. If Microsoft improves anything, you put your hands over your eyes and ears and go “la la la la” so as not to see or hear about it. And this blog entry is the perfect example. You spouted your hatred without watching the videos, for fear that you *might* see something that you liked. And you know what? *That’s* what is both “true and sad”.

You claim that your articles regarding Microsoft and Apple resemble something like “objective analysis”. Well think on this:

No, I don’t. Perfect objectivity is a myth, and the “big lie” of human society. It is neither physically nor psychologically possible to be “objective”. The only thing I claim the links I provided show is that I don’t *always* rag on Microsoft. Objectivity is one of the funniest things ever created, because it’s utter bullshit. We’re all trapped inside our own skulls, and everything we say, write, or do is subjective based on that.

My aquaintance with your “work” mainly consists of mostly your rants on Scoble’s blog. Indeed, I’d never heard of you until I read your constant Microsoft-bashing on this blog (sorry to bust your ego).

You have a far bigger impression of my ego than I do. If people like or don’t like what I write, that’s fine with me. In fact, I’d prefer it if fewer people read my site, the bandwidth bills are starting to creep up. Don’t actively hate on it, that drives up traffic too. Just don’t read it. Really. It’s not paying any bills.

And on this blog, you do indeed give the impression of being a rabid anti-Microsoft, Jobs-worshipping fanboy, that spouts big words in the attempt to show off psuedo-knowledge (an affliction shared by many tech bloggers, BTW). This leads me to dismiss your articles without bothering to read them, such as the “Mac OS X vs Vista” article. You can bet that your behavior on this blog has diminished your credibility with others as well. I’ve been to other message boards where many do dismiss you as an Apple-fanboy and Microsoft-hater, mostly based on your rantings here.

Well, to be blunt, if you make up your mind about someone based solely on comments in someone else’s blog, you’re rather on the dumb/shallow side, and I’m far happier that you don’t read my writing. There’s enough people like you in the world, and if you all congregate in one place, it’s easier for me to avoid you.

So, it would behoove you not to constantly spout anti-MS rhetoric on this blog if you want people to put credence into your articles.

I’m still getting paid to write them, and the rate is going up, so it doesn’t seem to be a real problem. And if it ever becomes one, so what? All the writing does is fund my “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea” collection and buy me new guitars on a regular basis. In any event, I’m rather content with myself and my life, so DO pardon me if I’m not changing based on a commenter with the name of a beer that tastes like roofing tar.

Again, you bashed Microsoft on this topic without even watching Scoble’s videos.

And you know this? Proof?

And it’s not like you added anything new, it was just the same garbage that you spout on this blog each and every week, and at least 4 times each week. Since you brought nothing new to the table and didn’t watch the videos, why did you even post a comment for this blog entry anyway? You have a compulsion regarding Microsoft, where you just can’t help yourself from regurgitating bile.

Oh, and of course, YOUR comments are incisive and providing necessary analysis on the video I suppose.

Oh, and if you don’t want to clean up your act for the sake of restoring credibility of your “articles”, then at least get some new material so that you don’t sound like a broken record.

Obviously, this is a real problem for you. So here’s a tip: Don’t read anything I write. Don’t read my comments. Don’t reply to them. In fact, here’s a handy mantra: “There is no welch. Welch is dead to me”

repeat it until you reclaim your psychic balance.

That video was made by Microsoft themselves, and was shown prompt product divisions to use better packaging. You can’t point to a Microsoft package like the one in that video since that video was released, so it’s not “true” and “sad”, it’s “past”.

Actually, yeah, the Vista packaging is kinda lame too.

But again, you’re too biased against Microsoft to give credit for any improvement at all. Indeed, you don’t *want* to see any improvement because you’d rather bash. If Microsoft improves anything, you put your hands over your eyes and ears and go “la la la la” so as not to see or hear about it. And this blog entry is the perfect example. You spouted your hatred without watching the videos, for fear that you *might* see something that you liked. And you know what? *That’s* what is both “true and sad”.

Shhhh…shhh…just stop, and the bad man will go away. The bad man only exists if you let him. Just because the bad man likes Active Directory and Technet and thinks the Mac BU rocks, don’t listen. You have your mind made up, shhhh. Don’t let the bad facts in. That’s it. Chant your mantra. “There is no Welch. Welch is dead to me.”

It’s okay. Just because you don’t know whether I watched the videos or not, or that my comment wasn’t about the quality, or lack thereof in the MSR division, shhhhh. It’s okay. Facts and truth don’t matter. It’s the Welch, and the Welch is evil. Just because my comment was about how Microsoft waters down all their products and hoses them until the cool is gone, like what they did to Zune wireless file sharing, or the inane DRM on downloaded Xbox movies, shhh. It’s okay. Microsoft is still perfect in your world. Your fanboyism is okay. All your faults are really perfections. It is only the Welch that is evil. Everything you say or do is okay compared to the Welch.

John, I don’t think anybody said MS is perfect, but I will challenge you to name a relevant software company thats doing research you deem worthy of your praise.

Should make for an interesting read.

@35 I’m guessing IBM is right up there. They spend $6B a year.

Lazy, thanks…now we can pit IBM’s research against MSR and have a decent discussion.

Whats coming out of IBM research?

John, I don’t think anybody said MS is perfect, but I will challenge you to name a relevant software company thats doing research you deem worthy of your praise.

Should make for an interesting read.

Again, i didn’t make ANY comment on the quality of Microsoft Research. My comment was on how the REST of the company takes a cool idea and FUBARS it in comittee.

But since you’re asking, I think that MSR, like any research group, is doing cool stuff. So’s IBM. (When it comes to research, IBM pwns all). So’s Apple. So’s Google.

The problem with MSR isn’t the “R” it’s the “MS”. Now, if Microsoft ever really slims down, is run by someone without a pathological need to be the only software company on the planet in ANY category, and stops insisting that branding be done by firehose instead of paint brush, then Microsoft will become a far better company for it.

But right now, as a company, it has no focus whatsoever, and it shows.

Fair enough John, you’re basically saying MSR stuff doesn’t make it into MS products, but you haven’t pointed out what brilliant research from Apple, Google or IBM makes it into their products…I mean I think thats what the beef is right?

Whats come out of Google’s research labs that proves that they have a better track record than MSR for example (given Kevins list of technology transfer from MSR to consumer products). All I would like is a similar such list for any of these competitors. After all, Scobles post IS contrasting MSR and Google research labs.

Fair enough John, you’re basically saying (in a nutshell) that MSR stuff doesn’t make it into MS products, but you haven’t pointed out what brilliant research from Apple, Google or IBM makes it into their products…I mean I think thats what the beef is right?

So whats come out of Google’s research labs that proves that they have a better track record than MSR for example (given Kevins list of technology transfer from MSR to consumer products). All I would like is a similar such list for any of these competitors. After all, Scobles post IS contrasting MSR and Google research labs.

I’ve just seen part two of Kevin’s tour.

The thing that most struck me was the comment by that hapless researcher who was resigned to having everyone’s 4-core CPU chips all running at 25% capacity forevermore, unless Microsoft can someday find a non-prohibitively complex way to let individual application-level programmers laboriously tell all the cylinders inside the engine to work properly together. What a disappointment to realize that it’s up to Microsoft to make this happen someday.

Why is this something that Schofield shouldn’t just plainly tell Intel to make transparent within the microcode of the CPU chip, so that the typical harried application programmer doesn’t have to worry at all about whether a program will run at full processor capacity on a CPU? It should be the CPU’s own business whether it implements its capacity internally with one core or 8 cores or 80 cores. An operating system that can work on distributed machines connected by a network is another matter.

Fair enough John, you’re basically saying MSR stuff doesn’t make it into MS products, but you haven’t pointed out what brilliant research from Apple, Google or IBM makes it into their products…I mean I think thats what the beef is right?

No, that’s not what I’m saying either. I’m saying that by the time an idea from MSR has navigated the gauntlet of Microsoft teams, committees, branding, consensus, and me-too, it’s gone from something that could be cool and new to something two years behind and as bland as sand.

All the companies, (well, dunno about Google) have been guilty of this at one time or another. IBM’s a bit of a special case, because some of the stuff coming out of their labs is beyond “esoteric”. As well, a lot of IBM’s research isn’t so much for products as tech. Hard Drives. Etc.

So short of a company showing you a precise timeline, you can’t tell. That’s assuming the company even really uses its own research. Xerox PARC helped invent Ethernet, but Xerox was never an Ethernet Giant.

Hence my comment being about Microsoft being so relentless in stripping the cool/fun factor from things, not about the quality of MSR, or the usage percentages of MSR work.

Bob: we talk to Intel a fair amount. Lots of folks are thinking hard about multi-core.

The problem is that you really can’t just take a sequential software program and magically parallelize it. The developer needs to think about modelling the parallelism from the beginning.

skc write:

The funny thing about all the people poo-pooing MSR is that they can’t point to any other software related company thats doing great research. It’s all well and good to laugh at Kevins list, but at least point out a company doing better research

I think you are missing the point. What MSR does(by and large) is what other companies do in advanced product development. Kevin’s list is a joke. Hardly anything in that list was based on an original idea developed at MSR. Now if you want to call that ground breaking contribution from MSR fine… MSR is a warehouse of stars they hired and who are just reduced to doing incremental improvements to their previous great ideas, doing techfests and tech-transfers. I think it is the greatest waste of talent that there ever has been when you create an elite club of computer scientists who cant be effective.

Oh before you think I am picking on MSR, Google is the same they are wasting huge amounts of talent too.

It makes no difference what other software companies do in the name of research.

John C Welch wrote:
“Actually, yeah, the Vista packaging is kinda lame too. “

???
Vista’s packaging, while you may find it lame (lot’s of people on Digg like it, even the Microsoft haters there), it’s nothing like what was shown in that Microsoft iPod video.

“lame” wasn’t the issue, cluttered packaging was. The former is subjective, the latter not (or at least, less so).

And get real – If OSX came in the same packaging as Vista, you’d not be declaring it as “lame”, and everyone familiar with your writings knows it.

John C Welch vomitted:
“I’m still getting paid to write them, and the rate is going up, so it doesn’t seem to be a real problem. “

Two reasons for that:
1. Many aren’t knowledgable about your anti-MS bias. The readers of Scoble’s blog certainly are, but those that aren’t may be fooled into treating your articles as if they’re worthy of respect.

2. I never said there wasn’t a market for tech writing that constantly bashes Microsft and worships the facilities that Jobs to relieve himself. Apple fanboys certainly will flock to your writings so there is a market for catering to them. But your writings will never be mistaken for objective analysis by anyone that’s not drinking the same kool-aid that you do.

“Obviously, this is a real problem for you. So here’s a tip: Don’t read anything I write. Don’t read my comments. Don’t reply to them. In fact, here’s a handy mantra: “There is no welch. Welch is dead to me””

The “real problem” is that you say the same thing every week here. And no, I’m not going to ignore you (not that I visit Scoble’s blog much, certainly not as much as you do). I’m not going to put you on a mental “kill file” or “ignore list”. You’re not worthy of such. I’ll ignore you on a case-by-case basis as I do with anyone else. And I normally do ignore your drivel. But when I feel like it I’m going to call you out on the nonsense that you write, particularly when, as in this case, you write “Microsoft sucks” without even reading the blog/videos.

Oh, and I don’t need “proof” that you didn’t watch the videos before posting, anyone reading your first post here (and has read you before) would conclude as much from the very first two sentences.

“lame” wasn’t the issue, cluttered packaging was. The former is subjective, the latter not (or at least, less so).

“cluttered” is every bit as subjective as “lame” susan. It’s just that “lame” isn’t making a BS attempt at objectivity. One syllable, conveys everything I wish it to. I like the greater efficiency and lack of overhead.

And get real – If OSX came in the same packaging as Vista, you’d not be declaring it as “lame”, and everyone familiar with your writings knows it.

Pfft. You ever try asking people what they think first? Actually, I think the OS X box is kind of lame too. It’s…dull. Yes, that’s the word. Dull. The last time they had a pimpin’ logo was for Jaguar, and I wanted real fake fur.

Oh, i’m sorry, was that the sound of your assumptions crumbling? Better clean them up before someone steps on them.

1. Many aren’t knowledgable about your anti-MS bias. The readers of Scoble’s blog certainly are, but those that aren’t may be fooled into treating your articles as if they’re worthy of respect.

No, they know exactly how I feel. I hide nothing in that regard. They also know, unlike you, that I like some things Microsoft does, but they’re not the kinds of things that get noticed. Active Directory is just brilliant. I wish Microsoft would do MORE to help non-windows systems use it, but jeez, anyone can see it’s a kick-ass directory service. Same thing with the AD tools. In fact, the entire MMC concept is really brilliant. The ability to easily extend management tools to suit your needs? I’ve been on Apple’s ass for a while about that. (In person quite a few times) Apple wishes they had something as elegant as MSI and Group Policy for installing software across a network. Sure, you can come close with Apple Remote Desktop and Apple installers, but MSI just kicks the crap out of it.

I think the move to XML by Office should have happened years ago, that 97 format is just shit when it comes to reliability, durability, and scalability. But, I think their attitude towards including translators to the OO format is stupid. I’m also firmly on Microsoft’s side with regard to Adobe’s bullshit with the PDF translators, but if you read my blog (yes, I know, it’ll take more than ten seconds), you’ll see that I am no friend of the Acrobat team. The rest of CS? Love them. LOVE them. The Acrobat team? With the exception of the people I personally know on that team, I don’t trust them at all, they’re too willing to blatantly bullshit people.

However, how often does Robert talk about Active Directory, and MMC and the rest? Not bloody often. The stuff he does talk about is, usually, the stuff I dislike, and the truth is, there’s a lot of stuff in Vista that got changed for the worse, or makes no sense at all from the viewpoint of increasing clarity. Your approval of that idea makes no difference to me.

2. I never said there wasn’t a market for tech writing that constantly bashes Microsft and worships the facilities that Jobs to relieve himself. Apple fanboys certainly will flock to your writings so there is a market for catering to them. But your writings will never be mistaken for objective analysis by anyone that’s not drinking the same kool-aid that you do.

Dude…to be blunt, I don’t care. If it ended tomorrow, I wouldn’t care. I’m having fun. If you think I wrap my self-image up in what you or anyone thinks of my writing, you’re delusional. I’ve an inner circle of people who I’ve come to trust over the decades and they, by and large, do a good job of giving me useful opinions. But you? Shit, by what qualifications do you pass judgement on the quality or lack therof in my writing? I’ve got around 20 years of IT experience on damned near everything but Mainframes, what’re your qualifications? See, to me, you’re just another nimrod on the internet, all hurt and whiny that someone not only doesn’t agree with you, but laughs at your attempts to “straighten them out”.

I normally don’t agree with Robert’s anti-anonymity jihad, I think he misses a lot of points, but dude, really. Stop hiding in your mom’s basement.

The “real problem” is that you say the same thing every week here. And no, I’m not going to ignore you (not that I visit Scoble’s blog much, certainly not as much as you do). I’m not going to put you on a mental “kill file” or “ignore list”. You’re not worthy of such. I’ll ignore you on a case-by-case basis as I do with anyone else. And I normally do ignore your drivel. But when I feel like it I’m going to call you out on the nonsense that you write, particularly when, as in this case, you write “Microsoft sucks” without even reading the blog/videos.

See, you can’t even ignore me properly. It’s like a drug for you. You can disguise it as “calling me out” when I “don’t watch the video”, (I’m STILL waiting for your proof of that. I mean, if you’re going to COMPLETELY ignore my point, and accuse me of something, at LEAST have SOME proof of the accusation), but that’s just a pathetic attempt at crusading.

Tell the truth “Guiness”(sic). You do this for one reason. For once, someone’s paying attention to you. You’re maybe even getting emails about it. Of course they’re of two kinds: “YEAH, GET THE ROTTEN BASTARD, YOU SHOW HIMsowedon’thaveto” or “Dude, he’s eating this up, you’re just making him hum a happy tune”, but either way, you’re getting more attention on this blog than you probably get in a month.

Kinda heady isn’t it. The best part is, you don’t have to prove anything. You don’t have to even be right. See, I’m a nice target for people like you. I’m loud, regularly crass, see no reason to be overly nice to people I don’t know, see no reason to pull punches, and laugh at your bullshit.

Especially this:

Oh, and I don’t need “proof” that you didn’t watch the videos before posting, anyone reading your first post here (and has read you before) would conclude as much from the very first two sentences.

This reads as:

Okay, you’ve got me. Obviously, short of having server access and knowledge of every IP address you’ve used, or had access to in a fortnight or so, I have no way of knowing if you watched, or didn’t watch the video. I’d have to claim psychic powers, but then you’d really abuse me, and there’d be no way to have *any* dignity at that point. But since you don’t agree with me and I (supposedly) DID watch the video, then you couldn’t have watched. Because that would mean that we saw the same thing, and disagree, and for us to disagree means that one of us must be wrong and in my world, that has to be you. Forget about me admitting that your point had nothing to do with the quality, or lack of in the work that MSR does, because at that point, I’d look like a *complete* nimrod for missing a point that literally, had nothing to do with the video. No, I’m going to rail at you because YOU’RE NOT A NICE PERSON, and rely on mobthink to back me up. Facts, schmacts, I’m crusading against a mean bastard here, facts have no bearing.

Dude, if you showed me your script, I couldn’t predict you better.

@52 “However, how often does Robert talk about Active Directory, and MMC and the rest? Not bloody often”

Does he talk about it at all? That is unfortunate. But the likely reason for that is that he’s likely never touched it, installed it..in short…never gotten his hands dirty in the corporate IT world. A shame, really, as there is a lot to cover in that space beyond the next cool internet time waster. And with Scoble’s reach it could be a beneficial “conversation”