One thing Microsoft does WAY better than Google: Research

First, a little one-minute note from my editor. I’m giving Marc Canter what he wants. More, shorter, pieces.

Second, you get a choice — this is of the Microsoft Research TechFest, which my camera got a personal tour around. The full one-hour tour (actually, only half the tour, the second hour — and more “Editor’s Choice” clips will be up tomorrow).

Or, if the full hour is too long, go for a short version, which includes just the coolest stuff. First short version is here (12 minutes). Second short version is here (16 minutes).

Either way, THANK YOU VERY MUCH to everyone at Microsoft who made this tour possible. Especially Kevin Schofield, who showed me around the floor (he’s the guy you see throughout the video).

Kevin is the guy responsible for moving technology from Research into the product teams, so he seems to know everyone working on Research and what’s cool about it. This is the first tape. It’s about an hour long, but you’ll meet some really great technologists who are doing some eye popping research. If you can’t handle the long version (a second one will come up in a few days) we’ve picked a few of the cooler parts and will put those out shortly.

What will you see?

  1. 2:11: VIBE group shows off synchronizing via mobile phone research
  2. 10:09: Andy Wilson shows off a cool set of apps that use video cameras in a new way (don’t miss this, it rocks!)
  3. 19:50: Daniel Robbins shows off a new “tap UI” for phones.
  4. 23:35: Matt Uyttendaele shows off HUGE (4 gigapixel or so) photos with a killer “tiling” system that displays them wicked fast.
  5. 29:52: Linking the real world to the Web with pictures (killer camera phone research).
  6. 34:04: Speech recognition for podcasts.
  7. 36:50: Frank Seide shows video exploration and discovery for Media Center PCs.
  8. 45:31: Richard Harper demonstrates a bunch of hardware concepts and trials for home users.
  9. 52:00: Vibhore Goyal shows using SMS to blogging and research in India.
  10. 54:25: Rajesh Veeraraghavan is doing research with farmers in India to find better education systems for them.

If you only want to watch one thing, don’t miss Andy Wilson. His stuff is so freaking cool. His demos are in this short video.

[podtech content=http://media1.podtech.net/media/2007/03/PID_010628/Podtech_Microsoft_Research_Tour_Part_1.flv&postURL=http://www.podtech.net/scobleshow/technology/1393/cool-tour-of-microsoft-researchs-techfest-part-i&totalTime=3509000&breadcrumb=3F34K2L1]

Comments

  1. I have no doubt that the research team at Microsoft is doing cool stuff.

    But it doesn’t matter.

    Because to get from the lab to the customer, it has to go through the klein bottle that is the Microsoft addiction to consensus and everyone having a say. Any remote cool potential will be gutted, stomped on, and burned, so that it looks like everything else Microsoft does. Passionless, inoffensive, and, (worst of all), “okay”.

    Microsoft is the king of “okay”. They may be the biggest, but they’re still the king of “okay”

    No one remembers “okay”. You remember the first, the best, and occasionally, the last. But who the hell remembers the middle, even if it’s the biggest and/or lasted the longest?

    Here’s one. Who designed that lamer strip mall you drive by on the way to work?

    You don’t care, it’s “okay”. Hell, you don’t even remember the strip mall as anything but collection of shopts.

    Frank Lloyd Wright
    Mies van der Rohe
    Sears Tower
    The Golden Gate Bridge
    Central Park

    Those? Those you remember, because none of those were about “okay”. They were, and are, about passion.

    Microsoft is like someone who knows how to play a piano, can read music perfectly, but they have no soul for music, no feeling. They can play what’s put in front of them, but they’ll never feel the crowd, never take a risk without a net.

    In the end, who cares about Microsoft other making money? It’s the only thing they’ve ever been the best at.

  2. I have no doubt that the research team at Microsoft is doing cool stuff.

    But it doesn’t matter.

    Because to get from the lab to the customer, it has to go through the klein bottle that is the Microsoft addiction to consensus and everyone having a say. Any remote cool potential will be gutted, stomped on, and burned, so that it looks like everything else Microsoft does. Passionless, inoffensive, and, (worst of all), “okay”.

    Microsoft is the king of “okay”. They may be the biggest, but they’re still the king of “okay”

    No one remembers “okay”. You remember the first, the best, and occasionally, the last. But who the hell remembers the middle, even if it’s the biggest and/or lasted the longest?

    Here’s one. Who designed that lamer strip mall you drive by on the way to work?

    You don’t care, it’s “okay”. Hell, you don’t even remember the strip mall as anything but collection of shopts.

    Frank Lloyd Wright
    Mies van der Rohe
    Sears Tower
    The Golden Gate Bridge
    Central Park

    Those? Those you remember, because none of those were about “okay”. They were, and are, about passion.

    Microsoft is like someone who knows how to play a piano, can read music perfectly, but they have no soul for music, no feeling. They can play what’s put in front of them, but they’ll never feel the crowd, never take a risk without a net.

    In the end, who cares about Microsoft other making money? It’s the only thing they’ve ever been the best at.

  3. Saw C9’s videos of it with Rory Blyth. I’ll pay to get both you and him working together….

    (Don’t really expect me to pay)

  4. John C. Welch, you didn’t even bother watching Scoble’s material, you just jumped at another chance to bash Microsoft. We get it – you hate Microsoft. (Too bad that destroys the credibility of your “articles” in other web publications.)

    But you don’t need to post that in every single blog. Give it a rest. You derailed this thread in the 3rd post before anyone had a chance to talk about any of the research itself. If all you have to bring to the table on Microsoft topics is, “Microsoft sucks”, without even reading or viewing the blog/video, then just don’t post anything (at least once in a while).

  5. John C. Welch, you didn’t even bother watching Scoble’s material, you just jumped at another chance to bash Microsoft. We get it – you hate Microsoft. (Too bad that destroys the credibility of your “articles” in other web publications.)

    But you don’t need to post that in every single blog. Give it a rest. You derailed this thread in the 3rd post before anyone had a chance to talk about any of the research itself. If all you have to bring to the table on Microsoft topics is, “Microsoft sucks”, without even reading or viewing the blog/video, then just don’t post anything (at least once in a while).

  6. whoa-whoa – a quick google search reveals google has over 10000 employees given 20% (one day a week) of their time for personal we’ll call it research. Microsoft has according to research.microsoft.com over 700 people – say working 5 days a week. So Google is doing what 185% more research…

  7. whoa-whoa – a quick google search reveals google has over 10000 employees given 20% (one day a week) of their time for personal we’ll call it research. Microsoft has according to research.microsoft.com over 700 people – say working 5 days a week. So Google is doing what 185% more research…

  8. Dude, thanks for spending the time at Techfest and for spending far more time editing the videos together. I know this was a huge amount of time and I really appreciate it.

    It always pisses me off when people say that Microsoft hasn’t commercialized its research. We’ve worked closely with our product gorups to transfer a ton of stuff over. What we haven’t done is get in people’s faces about it.

    In Vista: the 3-D interface, the Sidebar, Superfetch, speech recognition. The network map autodetection. Ink parsing. IPv6 support. The IE7 phishing detector. The new HP photo format. MSR made significant contributions to all of these. In Office 2007, we helped with the new Ribbon UI, made improvmenets to search relevance in Sharepoint, improved chart labeling in Excel, and improved the spell checker. For the XBox we contributed graphics library for photorealistic functions, TrueSkill, geolocation for XBox live, the AI for Forza. Data mining algorithms in SQL Server came from MSR. We contributed to the spam filters in Hotmail, Exchange and Outlook. Several of the tools in Visual Studio Team Server came from MSR, as did the static driver verifier in the Vista DDK. There’s MSR technology everywhere.

    There are dozens and dozens of other examples. The Tablet PC came out of MSR. The first-generation Windows Media audio codec came out of MSR too. Our interactive TV work started in MSR.

    So fine, if you want to beat us up for not blowing our own horn, I’ll take that hit. But to say that we don’t commercialize our research is just wrong.

  9. Dude, thanks for spending the time at Techfest and for spending far more time editing the videos together. I know this was a huge amount of time and I really appreciate it.

    It always pisses me off when people say that Microsoft hasn’t commercialized its research. We’ve worked closely with our product gorups to transfer a ton of stuff over. What we haven’t done is get in people’s faces about it.

    In Vista: the 3-D interface, the Sidebar, Superfetch, speech recognition. The network map autodetection. Ink parsing. IPv6 support. The IE7 phishing detector. The new HP photo format. MSR made significant contributions to all of these. In Office 2007, we helped with the new Ribbon UI, made improvmenets to search relevance in Sharepoint, improved chart labeling in Excel, and improved the spell checker. For the XBox we contributed graphics library for photorealistic functions, TrueSkill, geolocation for XBox live, the AI for Forza. Data mining algorithms in SQL Server came from MSR. We contributed to the spam filters in Hotmail, Exchange and Outlook. Several of the tools in Visual Studio Team Server came from MSR, as did the static driver verifier in the Vista DDK. There’s MSR technology everywhere.

    There are dozens and dozens of other examples. The Tablet PC came out of MSR. The first-generation Windows Media audio codec came out of MSR too. Our interactive TV work started in MSR.

    So fine, if you want to beat us up for not blowing our own horn, I’ll take that hit. But to say that we don’t commercialize our research is just wrong.

  10. [...] This was just another post made by Robert Scoble (Blog readers ought-ta know who he is, for the rest of them he is a very popular tech blogger)… so anyways the post i was reading about was where he talks about one thing mircosoft does better than google- research. [...]

  11. Mike, you can’t just say that whatever people do with 20% of their time is “research.” You have to have a quality metric to it. For MSR, it’s papers published. We’ve published over 3700. We publish in peer-reviewed journals, so third-parties can tell us whether our work is any good or not. Google may or may not get benefit from their 20% time rule (though I have yet to meet anyone at Google who works less than a sixty hour week, so you have to wonder where that 20% time is coming from…) but it has nothing to do with real research.

  12. Mike, you can’t just say that whatever people do with 20% of their time is “research.” You have to have a quality metric to it. For MSR, it’s papers published. We’ve published over 3700. We publish in peer-reviewed journals, so third-parties can tell us whether our work is any good or not. Google may or may not get benefit from their 20% time rule (though I have yet to meet anyone at Google who works less than a sixty hour week, so you have to wonder where that 20% time is coming from…) but it has nothing to do with real research.

  13. @8 I understand the defensiveness, but you overlook John’s point. John conceded that MSR does great work, but the point is, when it ends up in MS products it’s no where near are “cool” or great as the original researcher envisioned. But, I guess it’s much like concept cars ending up in production..they are always trimmed down and gutted to meet the mass production demand. Everything mentioned about what ended up in Vista is..as John said…just okay. Sidebar? yawn. 3D -interface? How does that make a user more productive or what problem does that solve that wasn’t being solved with simple Alt-Tab? Heech Specognition? How much is that used? The Ribbon UI? Was it MSR’s goal to have users re-learn Office?

  14. @8 I understand the defensiveness, but you overlook John’s point. John conceded that MSR does great work, but the point is, when it ends up in MS products it’s no where near are “cool” or great as the original researcher envisioned. But, I guess it’s much like concept cars ending up in production..they are always trimmed down and gutted to meet the mass production demand. Everything mentioned about what ended up in Vista is..as John said…just okay. Sidebar? yawn. 3D -interface? How does that make a user more productive or what problem does that solve that wasn’t being solved with simple Alt-Tab? Heech Specognition? How much is that used? The Ribbon UI? Was it MSR’s goal to have users re-learn Office?

  15. Robert,

    Microsoft’s always been incredible at research. Where they suck, like many prestige research institutions like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC, is in turning the cool research into real products.

    The number of times I’ve been shown (and wowed by) Microsoft Research projects is countless. The number of actual shipping products based on the things which caused my jaw to hit the floor? Almost none.

    Sad. :(

  16. Robert,

    Microsoft’s always been incredible at research. Where they suck, like many prestige research institutions like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC, is in turning the cool research into real products.

    The number of times I’ve been shown (and wowed by) Microsoft Research projects is countless. The number of actual shipping products based on the things which caused my jaw to hit the floor? Almost none.

    Sad. :(

  17. Great Video Robert! You did a wonderful job of capturing what was there! I knew giving up my seat for you to get a better camera spot for the keynote was the right thing to do :)

  18. Great Video Robert! You did a wonderful job of capturing what was there! I knew giving up my seat for you to get a better camera spot for the keynote was the right thing to do :)

  19. I have to jump in here on this one.

    To me Microsoft is more of a company that enables people to do amazing things. I mean look how much goes into JUST development side to enable people to make cool stuff. By Microsoft doing their research they are enableing people to see what is possible which in turns allows others to replicate and mass produce. My favorite quote by an MS employe is this

    “Microsoft doesn’t create cool stuff, they enable everyone else to create cool stuff.”

    To me it is soo true I mean look at AJAX MS created the technology originally to enable it and now look at where it has gone it is becoming a standard of its own.

  20. I have to jump in here on this one.

    To me Microsoft is more of a company that enables people to do amazing things. I mean look how much goes into JUST development side to enable people to make cool stuff. By Microsoft doing their research they are enableing people to see what is possible which in turns allows others to replicate and mass produce. My favorite quote by an MS employe is this

    “Microsoft doesn’t create cool stuff, they enable everyone else to create cool stuff.”

    To me it is soo true I mean look at AJAX MS created the technology originally to enable it and now look at where it has gone it is becoming a standard of its own.

  21. I respectfully disagree with post 15. MS totally whiffed on AJAX. True they invented the xmlhttprequest object, but they didn’t understand it was revolutionary. How ironic that Google used Microsoft’s own technology against them?

    Xerox invented the GUI, but didn’t realize what they had invented. Jobs must have left his tour smiling at what he had stumbled upon. Probably calling the Xerox people idiots along the way.

    You can invent all you want, but if you don’t develop markets with the technology what use is it? They don’t seem to have the ability to recognize what is significant and what is not.

    How long did the xmlhttprequest object languish within IE before Google rediscovered it?

  22. I respectfully disagree with post 15. MS totally whiffed on AJAX. True they invented the xmlhttprequest object, but they didn’t understand it was revolutionary. How ironic that Google used Microsoft’s own technology against them?

    Xerox invented the GUI, but didn’t realize what they had invented. Jobs must have left his tour smiling at what he had stumbled upon. Probably calling the Xerox people idiots along the way.

    You can invent all you want, but if you don’t develop markets with the technology what use is it? They don’t seem to have the ability to recognize what is significant and what is not.

    How long did the xmlhttprequest object languish within IE before Google rediscovered it?

  23. Don’t give MC what he asks for or he won’t get what he really wants, a chance to moan and complain.

  24. Don’t give MC what he asks for or he won’t get what he really wants, a chance to moan and complain.

  25. John C. Welch, you didn’t even bother watching Scoble’s material, you just jumped at another chance to bash Microsoft. We get it – you hate Microsoft. (Too bad that destroys the credibility of your “articles” in other web publications.)

    You’re not into the whole “research” thing are you? An incomplete list of favorable or neutral Microsoft articles from me:

    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2004/12/sometimes_microsoft_really_is.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/03/finally_found_a_replacement_ce.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/03/the_sprintaudiovox_ppc6600_sma.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/05/good_job_microsoft.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2006/02/its_a_busy_day_in_the_troll_zo.html
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/appleent/article.php/3568166
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/appleent/article.php/3610776
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/appleent/article.php/3594126

    Do I hammer Microsoft over them bein’ stupid? Oh HELL yeah.

    But I rag on the Acrobat team just as hard, if not harder, because they’re like a big tumor of dumb in a pretty smart company.

    I rag on Apple, very specifically when they deserve it too:

    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2006/10/apple_dont_be_a_bunch_of_tools.html

    Somehow, you seemed to have missed that.

    But you don’t need to post that in every single blog. Give it a rest. You derailed this thread in the 3rd post before anyone had a chance to talk about any of the research itself. If all you have to bring to the table on Microsoft topics is, “Microsoft sucks”, without even reading or viewing the blog/video, then just don’t post anything (at least once in a while).

    pfft, [waves hand dismissively ]. Like you’re a shining example of NOT derailing things. But then, you just wanted a chance to attack OMGTEHMEANZ0R!!!111

    how’s that working out for you?

    So fine, if you want to beat us up for not blowing our own horn, I’ll take that hit. But to say that we don’t commercialize our research is just wrong.

    No one’s saying that. But by the time you commercialize stuff, it’s been comitteed and consensus’d to bland. Look at your list of stuff Kevin, and eliminate everything that was Microsoft playing catchup with Vista to get to where everyone else already was, and suddenly, that list is a LOT smaller.

    And yet, in the one place that should be a shining example of how to do it right and cool, namely OWA, Microsoft is still, very deliberately, crippling the experience for everyone not using IE on Windows. Brilliant way to lead the way.

    Maybe when Microsoft stops letting their competition set the agenda…

  26. John C. Welch, you didn’t even bother watching Scoble’s material, you just jumped at another chance to bash Microsoft. We get it – you hate Microsoft. (Too bad that destroys the credibility of your “articles” in other web publications.)

    You’re not into the whole “research” thing are you? An incomplete list of favorable or neutral Microsoft articles from me:

    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2004/12/sometimes_microsoft_really_is.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/03/finally_found_a_replacement_ce.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/03/the_sprintaudiovox_ppc6600_sma.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/05/good_job_microsoft.html
    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2006/02/its_a_busy_day_in_the_troll_zo.html
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/appleent/article.php/3568166
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/appleent/article.php/3610776
    http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/appleent/article.php/3594126

    Do I hammer Microsoft over them bein’ stupid? Oh HELL yeah.

    But I rag on the Acrobat team just as hard, if not harder, because they’re like a big tumor of dumb in a pretty smart company.

    I rag on Apple, very specifically when they deserve it too:

    http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2006/10/apple_dont_be_a_bunch_of_tools.html

    Somehow, you seemed to have missed that.

    But you don’t need to post that in every single blog. Give it a rest. You derailed this thread in the 3rd post before anyone had a chance to talk about any of the research itself. If all you have to bring to the table on Microsoft topics is, “Microsoft sucks”, without even reading or viewing the blog/video, then just don’t post anything (at least once in a while).

    pfft, [waves hand dismissively ]. Like you’re a shining example of NOT derailing things. But then, you just wanted a chance to attack OMGTEHMEANZ0R!!!111

    how’s that working out for you?

    So fine, if you want to beat us up for not blowing our own horn, I’ll take that hit. But to say that we don’t commercialize our research is just wrong.

    No one’s saying that. But by the time you commercialize stuff, it’s been comitteed and consensus’d to bland. Look at your list of stuff Kevin, and eliminate everything that was Microsoft playing catchup with Vista to get to where everyone else already was, and suddenly, that list is a LOT smaller.

    And yet, in the one place that should be a shining example of how to do it right and cool, namely OWA, Microsoft is still, very deliberately, crippling the experience for everyone not using IE on Windows. Brilliant way to lead the way.

    Maybe when Microsoft stops letting their competition set the agenda…

  27. “One thing Microsoft does WAY better than Google: Research”

    What do you mean? Are the offices better? The chairs more comfy? Bigger screens or faster internet access?

    What has Microsoft “research” produced? Maybe I’m privileged, but Microsoft research appears to be significantly less productive than academic research labs in public and private universities.

    When you run the numbers (Microsoft spent something like $6 billion on “research” last year), it gets even more depressing but very few schools in America have that kind of endowment, let alone a lab with that kind of funding.

    Microsoft is the worst software company in the world.

  28. “One thing Microsoft does WAY better than Google: Research”

    What do you mean? Are the offices better? The chairs more comfy? Bigger screens or faster internet access?

    What has Microsoft “research” produced? Maybe I’m privileged, but Microsoft research appears to be significantly less productive than academic research labs in public and private universities.

    When you run the numbers (Microsoft spent something like $6 billion on “research” last year), it gets even more depressing but very few schools in America have that kind of endowment, let alone a lab with that kind of funding.

    Microsoft is the worst software company in the world.

  29. LOL @ John C. Welch.
    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.

    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).

    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.

  30. LOL @ John C. Welch.
    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.

    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).

    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.

  31. Another example of Microsoft Research being used in real products, that Kevin Schofield missed.
    F#, the MSR .NET functional language, is used in heavy-duty data processing (we’re talking Terabytes of data) in Xbox Live.

  32. Another example of Microsoft Research being used in real products, that Kevin Schofield missed.
    F#, the MSR .NET functional language, is used in heavy-duty data processing (we’re talking Terabytes of data) in Xbox Live.

  33. I understand that MS may have a great research arm, but the consumer rarely see the fruit of such research.

    What I’m driving at is simple: Apple does research and releases a wonderful OS, cool consumer gadgets, and beautiful hardware. MS copies with the Zune, and what do we get? A dud of a device.

    Vista, likewise, is a dud of an OS. No wonder people are switching to the Mac in record numbers. It’s just a better platform all around.

    Research is great, but people need to see the fruits of that research in tangible ways that the average consumer can see and enjoy. For all the years that Vista was in R&D, we really get nothing more than an interface that tried so hard to be Aqua, security that places the onus squarely on the user, and a definitive lack of available drivers for gadgets.

  34. I understand that MS may have a great research arm, but the consumer rarely see the fruit of such research.

    What I’m driving at is simple: Apple does research and releases a wonderful OS, cool consumer gadgets, and beautiful hardware. MS copies with the Zune, and what do we get? A dud of a device.

    Vista, likewise, is a dud of an OS. No wonder people are switching to the Mac in record numbers. It’s just a better platform all around.

    Research is great, but people need to see the fruits of that research in tangible ways that the average consumer can see and enjoy. For all the years that Vista was in R&D, we really get nothing more than an interface that tried so hard to be Aqua, security that places the onus squarely on the user, and a definitive lack of available drivers for gadgets.

  35. I am sorry, thre is very little in the way of really good research coming out of MSR as it looks. If there was you wouldnt have to brag about it, the world will know it.

    Vista Sidebar doesnt count as research, it is developing gizmos and passing them as research. It is the high priests passing off crap as the holy shit!

  36. I am sorry, thre is very little in the way of really good research coming out of MSR as it looks. If there was you wouldnt have to brag about it, the world will know it.

    Vista Sidebar doesnt count as research, it is developing gizmos and passing them as research. It is the high priests passing off crap as the holy shit!

  37. Anon@20, your numbers are way out of proportion (in the order of maginitude). $6 Billion on research spent? That is like more than 8 million dollars per researcher.

    $6B was our total R&D few years back (you should confirm the correct numbers). Just “R” is way lower by order of magnitudes.

    BTW, I have been on various NSF panels and have seen various funding proposals. Average researcher in Microsoft has about the same spent as an average university professor (if you ignore the student stipends).

  38. Anon@20, your numbers are way out of proportion (in the order of maginitude). $6 Billion on research spent? That is like more than 8 million dollars per researcher.

    $6B was our total R&D few years back (you should confirm the correct numbers). Just “R” is way lower by order of magnitudes.

    BTW, I have been on various NSF panels and have seen various funding proposals. Average researcher in Microsoft has about the same spent as an average university professor (if you ignore the student stipends).

  39. 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…

  40. 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…

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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”.

  54. 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”.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

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

    Whats coming out of IBM research?

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

    Whats coming out of IBM research?

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. “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.

  80. “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.

  81. @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”

  82. @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”

  83. Right. See, he talks about Microsoft outside of the areas that I like them for. So by definition, (unless i REALLY wanted to hijack things), since he only talks about Microsoft in the areas that I’m down on them about, well, my opinions of them are going to be negative.

    Funny how context and looking at the larger picture changes things. Well, not for Guiness(sic), because face it, he’s just in it for the crusadin’.

  84. Right. See, he talks about Microsoft outside of the areas that I like them for. So by definition, (unless i REALLY wanted to hijack things), since he only talks about Microsoft in the areas that I’m down on them about, well, my opinions of them are going to be negative.

    Funny how context and looking at the larger picture changes things. Well, not for Guiness(sic), because face it, he’s just in it for the crusadin’.

  85. LOL @ Welch and Guiness trying to get the last word in their pissing contest!

    But it’s getting boring now. Both of you should just let it go.

    As for Scoble not talking about things like AD or MMC, it’s because he knows nothing about them. Scoble is into gadgets and web services. He’s not technically knowledgeable to go beyond that, nor does he pretend to be. (He’s not technically knowledgeable about the areas he *does* cover either, but that’s another story. :p)

  86. LOL @ Welch and Guiness trying to get the last word in their pissing contest!

    But it’s getting boring now. Both of you should just let it go.

    As for Scoble not talking about things like AD or MMC, it’s because he knows nothing about them. Scoble is into gadgets and web services. He’s not technically knowledgeable to go beyond that, nor does he pretend to be. (He’s not technically knowledgeable about the areas he *does* cover either, but that’s another story. :p)

  87. A comment back to Alex and Jimmy: read the papers before you pass judgment.

    Every single thing I listed is a place where a new direction was founded and papers were published on it. If you want to make up some unattainable or moving target definition of “groundbreaking” so that MSR can’t possibly match it, fine. But talk to the people who work in these researchers’ domains, and they will all tell you that this is groundbreaking work.

    Cardelli and Peyton-Jones did groundbreaking functional programming work before they joined MSR, and they did lots more once they got to MSR.

    Srivastava et al started the code-rearrangement work before they got to MSR, but they made it scale and work on real production code at MSR. And that’s the important part.

    And no one tells our researchers what to work on; they pick their own projects. No one forces them to participate in Techfest; they all volunteer. And of course I strongly disagree with the notion that they are wasting their talent; they are all using it to great benefit.

    And just a final thought: if you’re measuring a research lab on the number of “groundbreaking breakthroughts,” then you simply don’t understand how research is done. 99% of all research is incremental, building upon great work that came before and taking it to the next step. You measure a research lab by whether it’s advancing the state of the art, getting those advances into commercial products, and overall on the impact that it’s having.

  88. A comment back to Alex and Jimmy: read the papers before you pass judgment.

    Every single thing I listed is a place where a new direction was founded and papers were published on it. If you want to make up some unattainable or moving target definition of “groundbreaking” so that MSR can’t possibly match it, fine. But talk to the people who work in these researchers’ domains, and they will all tell you that this is groundbreaking work.

    Cardelli and Peyton-Jones did groundbreaking functional programming work before they joined MSR, and they did lots more once they got to MSR.

    Srivastava et al started the code-rearrangement work before they got to MSR, but they made it scale and work on real production code at MSR. And that’s the important part.

    And no one tells our researchers what to work on; they pick their own projects. No one forces them to participate in Techfest; they all volunteer. And of course I strongly disagree with the notion that they are wasting their talent; they are all using it to great benefit.

    And just a final thought: if you’re measuring a research lab on the number of “groundbreaking breakthroughts,” then you simply don’t understand how research is done. 99% of all research is incremental, building upon great work that came before and taking it to the next step. You measure a research lab by whether it’s advancing the state of the art, getting those advances into commercial products, and overall on the impact that it’s having.

  89. A note to Kevin. First of all I have read the papers and and I know the fields that I mentioned out of your long list.

    My point was really abot the originality of the work coming out MSR in these 2 areas. For instance, it is well accepted that the work of Srivastava and Eustace on ATOM is a very simple and original idea in a field that had existed for a while. At MSR this was simply applied. No real advances on ideas underlying the original work were reported from the papers I have seen from MSR. So one can view this as the proper completion of a research program started by the authors, and yes that is a valid research method, and worthwhile. However a research lab must be judged also by the contribution to the science as well and that is what I was saying.

    I understand what you are saying, and you dont seem to be denying what I claimed. We just dont agree on how a research lab ought to be judged.

    If I may end on a hopeful and positive note, I’d like to see MSR work on long term problems that will contribute more to sciences and society, like some of the work that theory group is doing.

  90. A note to Kevin. First of all I have read the papers and and I know the fields that I mentioned out of your long list.

    My point was really abot the originality of the work coming out MSR in these 2 areas. For instance, it is well accepted that the work of Srivastava and Eustace on ATOM is a very simple and original idea in a field that had existed for a while. At MSR this was simply applied. No real advances on ideas underlying the original work were reported from the papers I have seen from MSR. So one can view this as the proper completion of a research program started by the authors, and yes that is a valid research method, and worthwhile. However a research lab must be judged also by the contribution to the science as well and that is what I was saying.

    I understand what you are saying, and you dont seem to be denying what I claimed. We just dont agree on how a research lab ought to be judged.

    If I may end on a hopeful and positive note, I’d like to see MSR work on long term problems that will contribute more to sciences and society, like some of the work that theory group is doing.

  91. I know that MSR is funded with Billions of dollars (anyone know the total budget since the beginning?) and I have not seen much on the market on a cost/benifit case. I am not impressed as I would expect cool things from them based on the dollars and effort.

  92. I know that MSR is funded with Billions of dollars (anyone know the total budget since the beginning?) and I have not seen much on the market on a cost/benifit case. I am not impressed as I would expect cool things from them based on the dollars and effort.

  93. I’d just like to say that comparing PARC to MSR is a little bull%^&*, in PARC’s day the idea of a mouse was “groundbreaking.” Due to the amount of technology already existing and general cynicism the bar for “groundbreaking” is far higher.

  94. I’d just like to say that comparing PARC to MSR is a little bull%^&*, in PARC’s day the idea of a mouse was “groundbreaking.” Due to the amount of technology already existing and general cynicism the bar for “groundbreaking” is far higher.