[mike777]

So if I follow the Excel discussion, MS is better off sending the 77B back to the owners pocket and let them decide how to invest that cash? Let me use Bill Gates as an example. He is selling MS and spending the cash on other stuff.

I get the impression from this discussion you don't want to pay to be an owner and some of you don't want to pay to be a customer.

[mycroft]

Mike:

1) The last time I bought any software from Microsoft that didn't come "already installed in the hardware, not removable" was ... I'd guess 1985. I've paid the Microsoft tax since for two XBoxen (the original of which I then rooted) and at least two laptops (and I have, very occasionally, booted into Windows on them. I will admit it is nice to have *a* Windows box in the house, for the very odd thing that "shalt be Vindows").

1a) MS has done some anticompetitive things in the past (which the DOJ hit them for, and MS stalled it out until the party who cares at least about the appearance of enforcing the Sherman Act left power, and then settled), which meant that I *had to* pay the Microsoft tax whether I wanted to or not, for any computer I didn't build myself. So, since they're going to get some of my money whether I want what they're selling or not, you're correct I will avoid paying to be a customer when it is possible.

1b) They haven't stopped - now they're working on making "not running MS OS == terrorism" (well, "insecure computer, won't boot" - but what is "making computers insecure so they can run their software on it" currently called?) As I happen to *prefer* alternate OSes running on PC hardware, this makes me - uncomfortable - with giving them any money.

2) Excel, in particular, is like Blackwood: very useful, THE tool for the job when you need it, but most don't know how to use more than the basics of it (which have other, better options, if that's all you're going to use), and more yet abuse it when it clearly shouldn't be used ("all slams go through Blackwood" == "all tables are Excel spreadsheets"). And I see no reason to pay $X00 for a tool I can't use well, and won't use often.

[mike777]

http://live.wsj.com/...38-0F56DFDAFE07

experts say how to fix MS, for WSJ.



btw I am one of those who for decades learned basic usage of excel, tested and passed, never used....do process over and over again.

fwiw I do see my local fantasy baseball league over the decades used excel to send us rosters, updates etc.

I also notice all of this is on the net now so excel not needed.
---

I find it very interesting how many posters think of MS in terms of a customer rather than as an owner.

[billw55]

mycroft, on 2013-August-28, 09:58, said:

Mike:

1) The last time I bought any software from Microsoft that didn't come "already installed in the hardware, not removable" was ... I'd guess 1985. I've paid the Microsoft tax since for two XBoxen (the original of which I then rooted) and at least two laptops (and I have, very occasionally, booted into Windows on them. I will admit it is nice to have *a* Windows box in the house, for the very odd thing that "shalt be Vindows").

1a) MS has done some anticompetitive things in the past (which the DOJ hit them for, and MS stalled it out until the party who cares at least about the appearance of enforcing the Sherman Act left power, and then settled), which meant that I *had to* pay the Microsoft tax whether I wanted to or not, for any computer I didn't build myself. So, since they're going to get some of my money whether I want what they're selling or not, you're correct I will avoid paying to be a customer when it is possible.

1b) They haven't stopped - now they're working on making "not running MS OS == terrorism" (well, "insecure computer, won't boot" - but what is "making computers insecure so they can run their software on it" currently called?) As I happen to *prefer* alternate OSes running on PC hardware, this makes me - uncomfortable - with giving them any money.

2) Excel, in particular, is like Blackwood: very useful, THE tool for the job when you need it, but most don't know how to use more than the basics of it (which have other, better options, if that's all you're going to use), and more yet abuse it when it clearly shouldn't be used ("all slams go through Blackwood" == "all tables are Excel spreadsheets"). And I see no reason to pay $X00 for a tool I can't use well, and won't use often.

You sound surprisingly against MS, for someone with a username that sounds so similar

Really, I don't understand your angst. You talk about a "microsoft tax" but then admit you have barely bought their products in 20 years, except for a couple things you actually had use for. How is buying an Xbox paying a "microsoft tax" when you could buy a perfectly good competing product (playstation) instead?

And what are you talking about with "not running MS OS = terrorism"?

[mycroft]

And here I thought I was being restrained. I'm not exactly an anti-MS zealot, but I do certainly support them.

"paying the Microsoft tax" = having to pay for a MS OS of some sort because it's impossible to buy the hardware you want to use (with a different OS) without Windows preinstalled. See the DOJ case.

re: the latter: Microsoft says that any computer capable of running Windows 8 must have UEFI secure boot enabled and the MS key pre-installed. The argument is that that means that a malicious user can not install an "untrusted" bootloader/OS and take over the machine. You can probably see the two steps from that to cyberterrorism as well as I can.

The other argument, of course, is that that means that a user that wants to try, or wants to use, another bootloader/OS needs to jump through hoops - and therefore they won't. And with their monopolistic position in the PC (rather than Mac, not rather than shared computer) world, this is exactly the same anticompetitive action that they got sanctioned for before. Plus, the way it works is antithetical to the Free Software key idea that the user can build their own stuff if they want - because the user can't get their key into the system without getting it approved by Microsoft. There are those (more paranoid than I?) who believe that is *also* on purpose.

[mike777]

I don't get calling MS monopolistic.

I thought the issue is MS is going broke and how do we save it for the owners and pensions.

Wow are we on different page.

I want to save jobs and pension plans...you seem to care about..well not sure....

[blackshoe]

Given the chance, the market will replace the jobs. As for the pension plans, if they're properly set up and have not been "raided" already, there should be no reason to worry about them. If there is reason to worry about them, then someone at Microsoft is responsible for that. Let him fix it.

[barmar]

Does MS actually have a company-funded pension plan? I'd be surprised if they had a traditional (define-benefit) pension plan, as opposed to a more modern (defined-contribution) 401k.

[Mbodell]

barmar, on 2013-August-31, 21:22, said:

Does MS actually have a company-funded pension plan? I'd be surprised if they had a traditional (define-benefit) pension plan, as opposed to a more modern (defined-contribution) 401k.

No pension (unless maybe for folks in the 80s or early 90s).

They have 401(k) [with matching 50% up to $6K if I remember correctly]. There is also employee purchase plan where you can put aside 15% of your salary (up to some max, $25K or something) each quarter and at the end of each quarter purchase MSFT stock for a 10% discount.

The company does self-fund (but not self-administer) its health care plan.

[y66]

Was just rereading this paragraph about Douglas Englebart in Wikipedia:

Quote

Engelbart slipped into relative obscurity after 1976. Several of his researchers became alienated from him and left his organization for Xerox PARC, in part due to frustration, and in part due to differing views of the future of computing. Engelbart saw the future in collaborative, networked, timeshare (client-server) computers, which younger programmers rejected in favor of the personal computer. The conflict was both technical and social: the younger programmers came from an era where centralized power was highly suspect, and personal computing was just barely on the horizon.

It looks like Englebart's long term vision is holding up well (change timesharing to cloud-sharing) and PCs are starting to look like souped up typewriters. We obviously would not be this far along if those alienated researchers hadn't left SRI to go to Xerox PARC where they invented bitmap displays, graphical user interfaces, desktop publishing, Smalltalk, laser printing and Ethernet.

According to former PARC researcher extraordinaire Alan Kay, who coined the phrase "the best way to predict the future is to invent it"

Quote

the right way to do a PARC-like effort is to find “two dozen absolute geniuses” in the appropriate field or subfield. He believes that this is “always doable” by selecting at the six or seven sigma level over the entire world. He cited other examples where the same model worked, including the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, Project SAGE at MIT, and the ARPA-IPTO program. Kay cautions, however, that great managers like Bob Taylor are scarcer than genius researchers. And the rarest birds are the executives who have the foresight and courage to give the funds to folks like Taylor to do as they see fit.

$77 billion dollar question.: If executives are not giving funds to managers like Bob Taylor, who are they giving the funds to?

[hrothgar]

y66, on 2013-September-01, 13:02, said:

It looks like Englebart's long term vision is holding up well (change timesharing to cloud-sharing) and PCs are starting to look like souped up typewriters. We obviously would not be this far along if those alienated researchers hadn't left SRI to go to Xerox PARC where they invented bitmap displays, graphical user interfaces, desktop publishing, Smalltalk, laser printing and Ethernet.

According to former PARC researcher extraordinaire Alan Kay, who coined the phrase "the best way to predict the future is to invent it"

$77 billion dollar question.: If executives are not giving funds to managers like Bob Taylor, who are they giving the funds to?

Here's the rub...

PARC made billions of dollars for companies like 3Com and Apple.
It didn't do much for Xerox.

The central lesson that gets taught about PARC in business school is that these sorts of investments are highly suspect for large companies because they rarely have organization structures capable of successfully adopting all of the disruptive technologies that get generated...

In part, this is why MIT has things like the Media lab. The goal of the Media lab is to have create something akin to Xerox PARC. The lab then charges large companies an arm and a leg for the privilege of seeing stuff early. If they pay even more, they can direct research. (I'm not sure whether the companies who sponsor the Media lab do any better than Xerox, but the folks at the lab seem to have fun and then certainly create some insane stuff)

[blackshoe]

"…by selecting at the six or seven sigma level over the entire world".

Interesting statement. What the Hell does it mean?

The only thing I know about "funds" is that no one is giving them to me.

[akwoo]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-01, 17:22, said:

"…by selecting at the six or seven sigma level over the entire world".

Interesting statement. What the Hell does it mean?

This means selecting people who are six or seven standard deviations away from (presumably above) the average, so, assuming normal distribution of abilities, selecting about the smartest one in a billion.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I thought the government had mandated that everyone should be above average. Or was that just about income?

[y66]

Xerox once called itself The Document Company. Now, on their web site, they call themselves "a leader in document technology and services". I guess they can call themselves whatever they want, but it seems to me that companies like Box + Crocodoc are doing really innovative work in the document business. Interestingly, Peter Lai (Crocodoc guy) interned at PARC in 2006.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-02, 06:51, said:

Heh. I thought the government had mandated that everyone should be above average. Or was that just about income?

There's a well known psychological paradx: Most people think they're above average in expertise at common, everyday tasks. E.g. most people think they're an above-average driver. Which is, of course, impossible: half the people have to be worse than the median, by definition.

So if everyone believes it, why not make it mandatory?

[Mbodell]

barmar, on 2013-September-02, 17:45, said:

There's a well known psychological paradx: Most people think they're above average in expertise at common, everyday tasks. E.g. most people think they're an above-average driver. Which is, of course, impossible: half the people have to be worse than the median, by definition.

That's culturally biased though. There are some cultures where most people think they are below average. Of course almost everyone can be above average (mean), if the few people below average are way below average.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2013-September-02, 17:45, said:

[M]ost people think they're an above-average driver.

I *know* I'm an above-average driver - I see all the idiocies on the road every day (and not the "not thinking/not noticing" idiocies - we all have those - but the "you know, if you missed something for half a second, as I've been known to do, you're paying in thousands, either sheet metal or hospital bills").

Note: I don't say I'm a *good* driver; just an above-average one. I am strongly in favour of "thou shalt retest whenever you renew your license" (possibly "every 5 years"; the truckers and commercial bus drivers who have to renew faster than that don't need even more hassle). I bet 30% of drivers would fail their first retest...

Quote

Which is, of course, impossible: half the people have to be worse than the median, by definition.

• Nobody knows what the median is, right?
  
• unqualified "average" usually implies mean. Having said that, that might be *higher* than the median...
  
• If the mode is "bad", it could in fact be true that a majority of drivers are above average.

[32519]

gwnn, on 2013-August-25, 08:49, said:

I think Windows 8 is not doing that bad as he says.

This guy disagrees with you, "How Windows 8 is smashing laptop, desktop sales."

Quote 1:
"In some ways, the most interesting thing about Threshold is how it recasts Windows 8 as the next Vista. It's an acknowledgment that what came before didn't work, and didn't resonate with customers. And though Microsoft will always be able to claim that Windows 9 wouldn't have been possible without the important foundational work they had done first with Windows 8—just as was the case with Windows 7 and Windows Vista—there's no way to sugarcoat this. Windows 8 has set back Microsoft, and Windows, by years, and possibly for good."

Quote 2:
"Threshold will target this new world. It could very well be a make or break release."

Quote 3:
“Windows 8.1, which is a substantial and free upgrade with major improvements over the original release, is in use on less than 25-million PCs at the moment. That's a disaster, and Threshold needs to strike a better balance between meeting the needs of over a billion traditional PC users while enticing users to adopt this new Windows on new types of personal computing devices. In short, it needs to be everything that Windows 8 is not.”

[Vampyr]

Well, I am planning to get a new computer, and have been waiting until there is a better version of Windows available.

I know that the better solution is to wean myself off Windows, but doing that is not on the horizon for me at the moment.